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 -
Yes?
Let's make sure I got this right - you don't care how bad a person he is, even if he was Hitler you'd fine with that because you want someone to survive a sexual assault scandal regardless of how abominable or real it is, did I get that right?
I'd assert that this may be satisfying and at the same time the opposite of what you'd want to do if your plan was to alter how the electorate responds to these things.
Oh no, "alter" isn't really the right word here.
You can't alter how the electorate responds (re: Boomers), you can just out-vote the concerns of that sector, doesn't matter what they think after that. Altering how the electorate responds is much like how the scientific community alters its consensus- one funeral at a time.
You misunderstand: this is the reform I support, because right now they're all false, and I want the people who are too stupid to realize that (and/or think it's good that sex assault scandals are valid heckler's vetoes) to lose.
So I guess that means I think those people are... literally worse than Hitler.
Okay so do you assert all the complaints about this guy are false (so he should be elected anyway)?
What about the stuff he and his supporters have admitted to, is that false?
Or do you think this stuff is real and that it is usually not false?
I'm confused.
Like I said before, I don't actually like his politics. But I need politicians to be able to lose on the basis of bad policy, not on the basis that one angry woman with accusations of sacrilege is enough to render any random politician un-electable, and if takes accepting bad policy to establish that precedent then so be it.
That said, it's the knuckling under here that disqualifies him, because that's what cuckservatives do, and he was running as an anti-cuckservative (though in the conservative/D party, so I'm not sure how shocked I should actually be that he believes himself beholden to Believing Women; it's kind of their thing).
okay, good, because that isn't what happened here.
The guy has MULTIPLE (and credible) accusations of various types of sexual malfeasance. Including things he has admitted to.
He appears to have issues with alcoholism, drunk driving, and poor impulse control.
He has expressed interest in violence, murder, and rape and taken steps to potentially participate in these things.
He has endorsed abhorrent policy (as defined by me - ex: socialism).
The whole Nazi thing.
Ideally he would have been disqualified long prior to this point but if this is the straw then so be it.
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