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 -
That is certainly a way to spin it, but scandals and polling don't line up perfectly enough to make that a strong theory. It is equally plausible that he was polling like generic Democrat when the populace didn't know him well enough to make the distinction, but as they learned more, partially the scandals, but also about his positions, the general populace like him less. One of his softer parts in the polling, after all, is non college white men, which is what the eggheads that recruited him thought hed be strong with.
The timeline also doesn't show gradual erosion of trust from party elites, rather a cascade that is centered around the polls being definitive at that same time a 2nd rape accusation allegation pops out (with the victim also seemingly previously motivated not to come forward for partisan reasons, its no stretch to see why that switched at the same time). All the party elites, we basically fine having a nazi tatoo having, reddit crazy posting, homophobic gay rape home invasion fantasizing, port a potty masturbating, serial domestic abuser, one time sexual abuser man as the candidate, and that flipped when there was a second, equally old, equally serious sexual abuse allegation? That is a silly assertion to make.
More options
Context Copy link