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 -
Who cares if the model is accurate? Its not supposed to be. It exists so that when Biden gets the most votes in history again, you can point to the model and call everyone asking questions an election denier.
There are a lot of people who dislike Trump. Biden’s victory is unlikely, but not implausible.
A path to victory? Possible. A path to the most votes ever in history again?
Well, like I said. I'd have questions.
Population keeps increasing. It would not be at all surprising if the election winner got the most votes in history.
With a TFR of 1.786, our population of citizens is not increasing. On the other hand...
Like I said... questions.
I encourage you to state your thesis more clearly.
The number of US citizens has been steadily increasing. I doubt I need to find a citation for that. US fertility is below replacement, but net positive (legal) immigration combined with long lifespans and a demographic bulge have led to the total citizen population increasing.
If turnout remains constant, then, we would expect every election to set a new record for votes cast for a presidential candidate.
(I'm aware that turnout does not remain constant, but 2020 was a high-turnout election and I expect 2024 to be as well.)
You linked a graph indicating that illegal immigration has spiked, which may well be true, but illegal immigrants by definition can't vote and don't factor into the figure we're discussing. You might argue large-scale illegal voting, but if so that seems like it would require its own evidence, not merely the existence of a significant illegal population.
In general what I'd like to ask you to do is to not bother darkly hinting at shadowy conspiracies, but rather state your questions clearly and unambiguously. The Motte isn't going to kick you out for having weird or unpopular takes. Nor do you have to be certain of something to say, "Here's what I suspect to be the case".
But repeating 'questions'? What's the point of that?
Say what they are. Be clear. Be right or be wrong, I don't care, but be clear.
Illegals can’t legally vote. That doesn’t mean they don’t vote. If you design a system that doesn’t validate legal status, then you will get illegals voting— especially if one party is adamantly for them and the other adamantly against them.
No, but it waggles its eyebrows suggestively and says “check for fake votes!”
There was a great deal of hunting for such fraud in contested and uncontested states. How many illegal votes did they find?
How many votes were the various fraud hunters allowed to look at by election officials and officers of the state, versus being tol they’re not allowed? How many of the trials went to discovery, versus being thrown out of court for not having standing? How many ballots were kept for the required number of years, versus being deleted from tally scanners with a “whoopsie! aren’t we clumsy”?
Sometimes, all a cover-up requires is to simply refuse investigation.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link