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 -
I am not denigrating you, but also you are not just "disagreeing" with me, in a matter of opinion. You claim widely known facts do not exist. How else am I supposed to describe it? And to be honest, it's not like your party haven't been habitually throwing this exact word at literally every person disagreeing on it on any matter, fact or opinion. So you can't really claim it's some particularly bad word that is taboo from being used. People have been called "denialists" for questioning dozens of things that are completely legitimate to question (and often these very people were found to be correct or at least not less correct than the opponent), so you have absolutely no leg to claim "denial" is some special insult that can't be used in a polite company and out of place in a political discussion. In this particular instance, its usage is entirely appropriate, as it concerns claiming that things that evidently happened did not.
And the concept of a person holding money in an account under the name of different person or a corporation had not been invented yet. Seriously. I mean, surely the personal accounts needed to be checked, just in case Joe had been brazen and dumb enough to just put money right there in plain sight. But if he was not, that doesn't prove much. Most people are smart enough to do that, especially people that run a large corrupt enterprise for years.
I'm sorry, "excessive leeway" is when you let the kid live in your basement rent free, poach on your beer in your fridge, drive you car and not fill it up, leave the pizza leftovers on the couch, smoke the weed indoors, that kind of thing. It's not when you allow him to sell access to you, President of the United States, to foreign powers, including China and Russia, and get millions of dollars in exchange for it. Biden may have been non compos mentis by 2025, but in 2015, when it all was at its peak, he surely was sane enough to know it. It's not "leeway", it's RICO. He didn't "close his eyes" or "put blinders" or any stuff like that. He knew everything, he couldn't miss it, his family knew everything, everybody knew everything and participated in it - that was the family business. There are witnesses and testimonies for it. And they got as brazen as invent those "Hunter artwork" scheme - which was selling nicely while his father was the President and turned out completely worthless the second he was out. Again, how naive can one be here?
Oh sure, on paper I am sure Biden never signed a contract with CCP saying "I will help you do stuff and you pay me through my son Hunter". Nobody is ever that dumb. Hunter just told them "I will be your conduit to my father, and to prove that, I will talk to you in his presence", and Joe knew exactly what is going on, and participated in it. Not once, not twice, but many times over many years. And he for sure knew millions of dollars are changing hands in connection to that. The fact that there's no paper saying "I, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., got this sum of money from CCP as a bribe and confirm it with my notarized signature" is not a big clue you pretend it to be - there's never such paper, nobody is so dumb as to make it. People have been taking and given bribes for millenia by now, and there are many ways to give and take bribes while avoiding creating such papers, and I am sure Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. can name a few of them.
And by "most" you mean every single one of them. At least as it concerns the "Russian collusion". And nobody still admitted anything or suffered any consequences for brazenly lying about it. Moreover, they keep mentioning it as if it's somehow a counterexample to corruption coverups under Biden administration.
Saying "denial" is something that has gotten me warned by the mods in the past, and I was only using it in a vague general sense. You're using it as a personal attack. The moderators on this site are heavily tilted towards conservatives so I doubt anything will happen to you on that front. Still, personal attacks make me just not want to respond to people who make them.
I'm not sure which specific "widely known facts" you think I'm disputing, but the overall "Joe took bribes" story is disputed not only by Dems, it was completely abandoned by Republican House members since there was just nothing there despite all their fishing and their dozens of subpoenas. Filling in that hole, that there's just no evidence, with unfalsifiable claims that Joe was crafty enough to evade all detection, then claiming "it's obvious" while making personal attacks that people who disagree are naive and "in denial" is one way to go about it I suppose. Did you know Dem partisans made similar attacks when the Russia investigation failed to show much in regards to Trump's collusion? Flip the valence of what you said, how it's ludicrous to expect any sort of evidence, that Trump would never be so stupid to sign a big contract saying "I, President Trump, agree to sell out the USA to Russia", and it would sound very much like something a never-Trumper would say.
In any case I doubt we'll change each other's minds, so I'm going to drop this conversation.
I don't think you know what a personal attack is.
You spent the entire thread talking past someone... And judging by votes, most people disagree with you.
At what point do you examine your own biases?
It still baffles me how people think popular = correct in terms of political arguments. Is it not well known that posting conservative opinions on a leftist-dominated forum like /r/politics would almost certainly be overwhelmed by downvotes, or vice-versa for lefty opinions to a conservative forum?
More options
Context Copy link
People disagree with him because of partisan considerations, and they downvote him because they disagree with him. They shouldn't be doing that, they're already in the wrong. But using those illegitimate downvotes to argue he's wrong is even worse, because it encourages them. Now they will think that by clicking harder they can win the argument.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link