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 -
The "Twitter Censorship Files" (WSJ, archived link) promise to shed some light on the Hunter Biden's Laptop Saga:
Apparently, no light can be shed without heat. Matt Taibbi agreed to certain conditions in obtaining the files:
The conversation is therefore veering towards journalistic ethics rather than the content. That WSJ op-ed I linked to above leads with the following:
When Snowden leaked all the NSA files, he made the journos agree to terms as well, and knew well not to do a Bradley Manning. And as I recall the WSJ was of the opinion that this was prudent and that you should never just throw confidential material out in the open without the scrutiny of journalists.
Given we don't know the nature of the agreement, and that the same reasons might be operating here (Twitter is very much an intelligence asset and I'm almost completely certain there were spooks on staff), it seems like special pleading to me.
Covering the story around the story to avoid covering the story is the canonical way to bury scandals after all, as French politician Charles Pasqua would say: "when one is getting fucked by a scandal, one must induce a scandal-inside-the-scandal, and if necessary a scandal-inside-the-scandal-inside-the-scandal, until nobody understands anything anymore".
That's a good summary of the laptop story in general. Every time I try to figure out why we're supposed to care about the laptop, it's some amount of 'because look who suppressed the laptop story' and never 'because the following turned out to be on the laptop.'
William Clinton was done in for a blowjob. Nationwide riots errupted due to a drug using felon. Sometimes the underlying thing is unimportant, but the way it is dealt with arouses concern.
If he hasn't gone on TV sitting next to his wife and lied about it to the American public he wouldn't have suffered for it as he did.
... getting murdered slowly in front of a camera.
Seeing a pattern here?
I'm pretty sure that was the point @huxley5000 was in fact trying to make.
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