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 toupee fallacy is possible, like it is true about every alleged conspiracy and secret. A successfully pulled off fake moon landing would look like a real moon landing to my eyes.
But that's why just like the moon landing, we can look at other logistics and question how feasible the coverup would be. If the moon landing was fake, that's a lot of people who would need to be silent about it, many of them who have little incentive (or even an opposite incentive like rival countries) to keep it covered.
Likewise if there was a mass fake voter scheme, that requires a lot of people with little incentive to keep it covered up. In fact, many of them would have the opposite incentive and would like the attention and money they might get from exposing such schemes or even just because some of them are conservative (I find it unlikely every single homeless person is some hardcore lefty). So like with the fake moon landing, we need an explanation as to why the USSR doesn't call out the US/many of the homeless don't expose the fake voter scheme.
As we see just with this random woman and a very tiny amount of homeless people involved, they seem perfectly willing to talk. So we can't take "the homeless won't talk about it at all" as a baseline.
What if there were a number of smaller fake voter schemes? Some of them better organized/more skillfully implemented than others?
If it's just a bunch of random people doing it without greater coordination then yes it could be theoretically possible, but this would also not be what is alleged (a greater scheme coordinated by politicians). And we would expect to see something similar, many of these schemes should be caught instead of it just being rare one of occurances.
I would not be surprised whatsoever if in every state there's been cases of someone filling out their nursing home parents ballots or sending in for a recently deceased but not yet recorded and updated nephew or even yes, a random person who pays another one to vote and don't get caught. If we're saying it's never happened, that would be absurd.
But is it large or coordinated as alleged? Well that would show a lot of signs we aren't seeing.
Who alleged that? Literally everyone in many spaces hates trump; they don't need to coordinate in order for many people (particularly people in the class involved with counting/monitoring elections) to be working towards the same goal.
If you don't have any coordination then holes will open up from that too, like how does election monitor 1 get everyone else, including ones sent by the opposing campaigns, to ignore their fiddling with the counts?
Has this ever happened with any crime where basically everyone involved is super competent to stay hidden, despite people on the lookout for it but also there's no coordination or planning or communication or anything between them? They just all happen to align as super criminals with a shared goal and no knowledge of each other.
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