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 think you misidentified the source of bribes. Money given to campaigns are subject to FEC rules attempting to preclude the person running from using the funds privately. It’s why the lawfare against Trump was dumb (ie mixed expenses are not campaign expenses).
In contrast, the real way to bribe someone is doing things like “speaking fees” or “board seats after they leave Congress.” Maybe a good job for the spouse or kid. And industry is careful never to fuck over loyal congresscritters because it is a trust business.
Yeah, that's fair, those are also common avenues of influence. There's also indirect real estate stuff. I just wanted to point out that personal outright bribes strongly imply that personal enrichment is a major and primary goal of lawmakers. I want to challenge that assumption. Many lawmakers are already independently wealthy and being e.g. a congressman often actually slows opportunities to gain more money. Furthermore, evidence suggests that although eye-popping sums do get thrown around in elections, those sums are usually the exception rather than the rule, and many of those sums are in fact intended to win the election and not cover for personal enrichment, at least not on the scale many people imagine. Thus, I take the opinion that personal enrichment is usually a secondary and more minor life goal, given that one is a lawmaker or government official.
With that background understanding, when I see the occasional congressperson get caught with smaller sums in bribery allegations, that makes perfect sense to me. After all, bribery was essentially a side-gig stemming from poor personal judgement, not their primary occupation. So of course the sums will be small, and the methods amateurish.
To understand a small population, you need to understand the pipelines to it. Most early-stage political jobs, that lead to later more powerful ones, don't have the same immediate potential pay-off and definitely don't have a guarantee of advancement. The major exception, of course, is when you enter the field due to notable nepotism, backstabbing, or personal connections leapfrog you up the ladder faster. Those are more suspicious and susceptible to bribery, at least it seems to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link