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 -
https://archive.ph/IHPLW
Tim Walz isn't seeking reelection.
It's been interesting watching the reaction in my various social circles as this plays out. It seems like it's rapidly coalescing into two distinct narratives depending on tribal alliance:
I don't know if either are actually true, but it's an interesting thing to watch develop in real time.
Does the “spotlight” really matter in this case? The Trump Train is going after him regardless of his job. If they can tie him to the ongoing fraud cases, they will.
Likewise for potential lone wolves. He’s going to be in the news whether or not he has a gubernatorial security detail. But I rate that risk pretty darn low, and I expect he does, too.
The real takeaway is that VP candidates don’t usually do much.
Hell, with one big, elderly exception, elected VPs don’t even do that much. You have to go back to Bush Sr. to find someone who actually advanced in their career after they were out of the Executive Branch.
I'm not sure if I buy that. Trump has a terrible track record of actually using the force of law against his political opponents. Even if Walz is guilty of a crime, it seems more likely that his AG will show up and give a speech on Fox News rather than actually indict.
Conditional on Walz being guilty of something damning—something with genuine prison time, I’d expect him to get indicted. I’d expect that whether or not he was sitting governor.
If that condition isn’t met, and the case against Walz is weak or nonexistent, I wouldn’t expect an indictment. Governor or not, the cost/benefit isn’t that strong. I think Comey and James only got their cases railroaded because of personal animosity.
The thing about speechifying on Fox is that it works whether or not the case is strong. Hear name, trigger boo lights. So, again, I expect it to happen regardless of Walz’s position.
Walz is almost certainly guilty of nothing that he was responsible for. That's how modern political machines work - we have advanced beyond the need for brown envelopes.
New Jersey begs to differ!
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