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 -
This is a relatively small thought. But watching more mainstream news being home for Christmas I see the supposedly moderate channels like NBC/ABC constantly running Santos lying about his resume and absolutely zero coverage of alphabet agency interference with twitters moderation. No mention that the fbi was paying twitter 3.5 million and suggesting who to censor.
The former I do think is bad that he lied. The latter seems like the biggest scandal since JFK assassination. What is it WaPo declares that Democracy dies in Darkness? And there is nothing in the mainstream media about the scandal.
Perhaps it's...not actually the biggest scandal since a beloved president accessorized his wife's wardrobe?
No one died. No sympathetic face is available to cry on the evening news--Trump already did his best impression when he got banned. Unsympathetic faces are even in short supply, since Elon spends more time waving his hands at stock prices than drawing attention to censorship. You can't place the blame on a political figure and sink his career.
I'd go further and assume the average American was vaguely unsurprised by the news. There's already a sense that the NSA does whatever it wants; why not the FBI? They've even settled down from their gunslinging days of the 80s and 90s. It was vaguely directed at Foreign Influence™ and everything.
On top of all that, the exposé is delivered not as a bombshell...but as a series of threads on the very website it's skewering. Networks can run a segment on a thread on another journo's work, or they can run one on the southern border. Or on a lurid murder. Or on Christmas fluff. I picked all those from the Fox landing page. It "seems like" that's what viewers prefer.
The deal was that the reporters who got the documents had to do their initial reports on Twitter.
Weird. Deal...with whom? Whose interest is served by this drip-feed of ambiguously shocking revelations?
Complaining about the medium seems bizarre to me. It is a way to distract from the story. The story has documentary evidence heavily implicating the FBI amongst other intelligence agencies in an operation to silence damaging criticism of a political candidate because the FBI disliked the other major candidate. That is, the FBI interfered in a domestic election in a material way.
Is there a smoking gun? Not quite. But we are well past more likely than not (and probably clear and convincing evidence). Not quite to “beyond reasonable doubt.” But if the facts alleged are true (which they appear very much to be true) the FBI interferes in a US presidential election for political reasons and yes that is the mother of scandals. If further factual development confirms what appears to be obvious, then this scandal should end with the FBI no longer existing. It should end with numerous people in jail. It should end with Joe Biden resigning (and if evidence comes to light that he was working with the FBI it should end in him being impeached, convicted, and then tried).
Complaining about the medium in that context seems silly. But it reminds me of the aphorism “when you have neither the law nor the facts, pound the table.”
Agree with a lot of what you are saying except Joe Biden resigning over the election interference.
People need to be guilty of the crimes they are punished for. And I don’t see direct evidence that Joe had anything to do with the FBI action. They were an allied group that was not in communication with Joe. Without the interference Joe probably doesn’t get elected but he still did nothing wrong on this charge.
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