This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is non-public information leaking into election betting markets?
Prior to the debate, on Predict It, Biden had something like an 85% chance to secure the Democratic nomination. After the debate, his odds fell to around 60%. By last night, it had eroded further to 50%.
Last night the flippening happened. The bottom fell out of Biden shares and went to Kamala. As of this moment, Kamala Harris trades at 51% and Biden is at just 29%.
As far as I can tell nothing has changed since 24 hours ago, so what gives? A few possibilities I can think of:
Someone is manipulating the markets to create a false consensus. I think this is the most likely. Mega-donors will spend billions on this election. A Biden campaign is doomed. Spending a couple million to move markets could have an outsized effect.
Non-public information is leaking. A source high in the Democratic party is talking and his friends are betting.
A whale is making a giant bet. I view this as the least likely because moving the market this much tends to be extremely unprofitable. Without inside info, this would be a very stupid bet.
Edit 1: I wouldn't rule out manipulation, but it does seem there was some public information to move the market.
Edit 2: Michelle Obama is up to 12%, which is the same as Newsom. Normally, the lower percentage bets are not liquid, but 12% rises to the level of "something, not nothing". Michelle Obama solves the Kamala Harris problem. And if we're electing useless figureheads she's better than Biden. But does she even want to run?
"and went to Kamala." This indicates insider information about insider coordination.
I can’t believe Obama would sign off on Kamala but maybe he just doesn’t care anymore.
She has really high negatives, but fewer negatives IMO than Biden at the moment, and her negatives are pretty much limited to people who closely follow politics. If she is kept away from improvisational moments, the narrative will become a series of hyped up "Girl Boss" and "Yass Queen" memes with a lot of media cheerleading. Democrats and their sympathetic social media drones will easily fall in line for "the first female president." How much the middle is persuaded by "making history" is a gamble, but it revives enthusiasm temporarily.
Also, if there's a concern that Biden's ticket replacement will have their political career tanked by an inevitable loss, no one will shed a tear for Harris. She's an acceptable casualty rather than some actually promising future candidate.
She'll be the American Kim Campbell; we'll have to hear a similar story about how the first woman president was set up to fail.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link