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 -
I never got the message of why Paxton is terrible. I heard there were allegations of corruption and allegations of some sexual harassment but none of those went anywhere. What actually makes him terrible?
Biggest thing I don't like about him is he's fat with a flabby chin and Talarico has neither of those problems. Still voting Paxton though.
They...actually did go lots of places; he was actually impeached by the Texas House of Representatives and narrowly acquitted by the Senate; was actually indicted on securities fraud charges (settled and paid $300,000 in restitution), and had to settle a lawsuit (for millions of dollars) brought by his own aides alleging wrongful firing after they blew the whistle on alleged criminal conduct.
Plus his wife divorced him on the grounds that he cheated on her (which I am given to understand he admitted to!)
(I'm going off of Wikipedia here, which I'm sure is full of editors trying to be maximally unfair, but I don't think it's incorrect about the basics of being impeached, indicted, and settling a whistleblower lawsuit. If any of this is wrong, please flag it!)
It doesn't seem insane to me that some of the above could have been unfair political smears, as Paxton alleged. But not the cheating, and even if he was innocent of all of the other alleged misconduct, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that someone who was indicted, impeached, and had his own staff whistleblow on him is not a great candidate because he's still tainted by the allegations, even if they are false, however unfortunate and unfair that might be.
More options
Context Copy link
If we're doing pure physiognomy, Talarico looks like the physical vessel of an evil spirit. Something about the eyes.
Ah, that's going a bit far. He just looks plastic, like the Ken doll version of "what a clean-cut candidate should look like".
Buttigieg maxing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link