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 -
In general I'm all for the "we should wait until trial finds someone guilty" argument, but they literally fled the state while out on bail and hid until his death. Even if he was actually innocent of the rape, he's a literal fugitive that the mother helped and supported! Those details are to be settled in court, not by whether or not she personally believes them (and that's assuming she doesn't believe the allegations instead of just not caring/supporting it).
In any other world that should be a disqualifying reason to prop up the mom by itself.
But as always now the GOP ratchet is to simply double down. Support a child predator on accident? The 12 year old must have had it coming.
Yes, your personal political enemies are all cartoon villains, as always.
Yes https://apnews.com/article/election-2026-ohio-governor-ramaswamy-acton-mother-93ab182c3e0a95d25ddb409ec0628231
... and where, exactly, does he say "The 12 year old must have had it coming", or words to that effect?
What else am I supposed to call choosing to side with a child rapist fugitive and his enabler over a victim?
That is evil and normal voters seem to agree considering how Ramyswamy's chances have plummeted. There is no need for Vance to defend this, but he does so anyway the same way there's supposedly no reason to cover up the Epstein files and yet..
I don't agree with magical kitty about much (this actually might be the first time), but the stepdad ran from a trial long before metoo. That means a cop listened to the story amd decided there was probable cause, and a prosecutor reviewed the case and wanted to bring charges and got an indictment. Then this guy skipped bail. That's not a conviction, but it puts him far closer to Roman Polanski than one of the Cornell 7.
How does someone decide to bet their campaign on the word of someone who hid a fugitive from justice over his accuser. None of us will know more about this case than the prosecutor, who believed the stepdad was guilty. Since a trial won't happen now, I'll trust his judgement on who's lying.
Actually there are two people who knew more. Amy herself, and the father.
And the father was a man who saw a trial coming and thought oh fuck I'm gonna be found guilty due to the available evidence. And because he is literally a criminal who fled the courts, we never got to see the results but we sure do know what he was expecting!
It's about as close to a layman's admission of guilt as we can get.
I think it’s reasonable to infer that the dad is probably guilty but if one didn’t care about their reputation one might believe that even if there is a 10% chance of being found guilty better to run.
Also trials generate a lot of juicy documents, so even with a not guilty verdict it can actually be worse for the reputation, if people read those.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link