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 -
My assertion is that I have yet to really see any anti-Trump writing that acknowledges him as a complete person, pretty much everything I've seen for ten years now has been exaggeration and stereotyping of his worse attributes and behaviors.
A much, much less lower bar ("say anything nice about Trump at all") has never been cleared by anyone I've interacted with in real life and rarely here.
I disagree with your characterization of charisma but more importantly the aforementioned behavior has been well known and noted by neutral and positive coverage since before he jumped into politics.
Either you ignore it because of Trump hatred, or (more likely) you haven't dug into who the guy is a person, which does a much better job of explaining his beliefs and behavior.*
Private knowledge tells me that Obama is a shitty overly permissive parent and that Bush did a bunch of coke when he was younger, but you don't need to be clued in to know that Clinton got up to shitty stuff with women or that Obama is destructively competitive. These are the most important people in the world and the unbiased information about how they actually function is out in the world.
Related: almost zero moderate to low information Democrats I know are aware of Trump's attitude towards drugs and alcohol despite this being an important part of his character, in fact most people assume they are the opposite of the truth.
Please do realize you just posted a collection random smears about Obama and Bush. While they may be true, they are not characterization of their personality or charisma. Like, trump is certainly famous for his own moral failings on infidelity and lack of decorum concerning women. But concerning charisma, Obama was very charismatic on tv --- exactly the person a blue-coded voter would like to hang out with. Bush projected a cowboy rancher persona, which worked for him but resulted in blue-coded people liking to call him a slow, idiot, moron and projecting conspiracy theories that he was really puppeted by Cheney, which was absurd).
Okay. But if you are arguing against such amorphous blob of writing you dislike, you are not really engaging in an argument with us in this forum thread.
e. P.S.
Concerning this aspect in particular: You say you reject my characterization of charisma. Sure, it was not all-encompassing definition. But do you reject that person I tried to describe exist? I recounted it because I found Skibbolet's description not exceedingly uncommon, a plausible theory of mind real people can maintain about other real people, in opposition to your claim that other interlocutors in this discussion are not modelling Trump as a real person. You have also neither touched on his letter to Norwegian PM.
I picked one person from each side of the aisle to make it clear it wasn't partisan, and your approach seems more "gotcha" oriented than anything, between that and a hidden profile I think I'm going to exit this one.
Cheers!
For the record, MAGA dislikes both Bush and Clinton, so it is not really very convincing attempt at non-partisanship. I also admit I don't really understand the point you were trying to make recounting anecdotes of them, either.
It is certainly your prerogative not to engage, I do that all the time when I lose interest in discussion threads here. However, I am befuddled why you posted any replies to my replies if you don't want to have an argument about what I wrote. Dunno if it counts a "gotcha".
Generally a private profile is a bad sign, and you seem to be making assumption and replying in a way that I don't think is conducive to discussion - for instance assuming I'm MAGA, or a Trump supporter, because I think that people need to be more calm about Trump?
Not typically a good sign.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone who thinks Trump is decidedly less virtuous than average, I can actually think of fair few nice things to say about him: he seems quite forgiving, he can be generous with praise, he's got a sense of humour etc.
Oh yeah many people here can do this if directly prompted, which is why I made it about people I know in real life. Too many people here will jump in on the discussion (big enough forum and people will get to it) or just say something to score points.
Likewise I'm sure with direct prompting people can do what I ask, but the baseline level on the internet is "Trump will cancel the elections" which is...not great understanding.
Well I can report nobody has claimed "Trump will cancel the elections" in this discussion here, yet. We have one complaint this far that Europeans interfere with the US elections, however
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link