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 -
Hi.
I guess I’m what passes for a garden-variety Democrat, and I think you’re assuming some conclusions.
The FBI had spent four years losing credibility by investigating people too hard, not hard enough, or at all. Longer if you count the Clinton “re-opening” nonsense. When faced with yet another kingmaking opportunity, are you surprised they decided not to take the initiative?
More generally, I think you’re too inclined to view your enemies as monolithic. The continuum looks more like this:
Notice that only the last one requires lying! Combine that with some unthinking solidarity, and you will see people parrot a party line without any malice. Go team.
There are far more people as you go up the continuum. I’m personally in the third or fourth camp.
Edit for clarity:
I don't find it hard to believe that the last couple groups are overrepresented in the Intelligence Community™. I also think it's a mistake to draw conclusions about the Democratic Party, general bureaucracy, prospects for the country, etc. based on those guys.
If we include the Hillary Clinton "nonsense" it make it even worse. That was an own goal by making a bunch of special pleadings in her favor, instead of just charging her and letting her campaign from the courthouse/prison as Trump will be doing now on his documents case (also this easy step would have let them bring those Trump charges without being incredibly hypocritical).
But I do like your 6 levels of "understanding" as a tool. However, when applied to the FBI (which is the question in point) the FBI agents would be best categorized as a lvl 5/6 hybrid something like:
"Biden should be unqualified, but these are unusual times, so I will work to cover that up for the greater good.
More options
Context Copy link
No rigorous definition of any of these terms seems possible, and the questions they exist to address are unavoidably important. The mechanisms we built to address such questions appear to have collapsed, and there does not seem to be a way to replace them.
I got called out for "doing a bit" yesterday, but I'm honestly not sure how anyone here or elsewhere thinks the conversation is supposed to go. There is no common ground sufficient to build a productive conversation on. You see a ton of people in this thread freewheeling because they can't get that through their heads; they still think we Americans are a "we", that the factual or philosophical or political or tribal markers they're trying to cash in still have something approximating an exchange rate. They think there's still ground under the feet, something firm, a source of traction, something other than empty air and a pavement rapidly approaching.
I understand the feeling; even now, reading your description of the situation, I want to start laying down the facts, because I know you're a reasonable person, and surely you can be reached... But reason isn't enough. I could claim it's because you aren't reasonable enough, unlike virtuous people like me, but the slightest amount of self-awareness shows that to be a clown's argument. You have facts of your own, those facts are assessed by worldview and axioms just as mine are, and that's that.
The concept of actually reaching some productive level of agreement on the problems at hand is, at this point, completely laughable. If it's not possible at our current level of escalation, it's not going to get easier two or ten or a hundred escalations further down the line. The very concept of reconciliation has passed beyond the bounds of plausibility.
Sorry, I might not have been clear with that.
What I was trying to say is: the FBI managed to piss off most everyone in the preceding years. General Republicans by soft-balling Hillary. Hillary supporters by going after her at all. Every other Democrat by failing to bury Trump. Diehard Trumpers by going after him at all.
Yes, this is stupid and contradictory. It's also sufficient to explain why the FBI might try to avoid commenting on the veracity of a source.
Anyway. I'm not sure I follow you, regarding the fruitlessness of discussion.
Maybe I just feel like the pavement has always been there, always approaching. Each child born around eighty years from splattering across an alarming area. Might as well have some fun while we're at it, no?
If you're like me, you get some satisfaction from writing. You struggle, sometimes, to arrange the words just so--but it is the right kind of struggle. Other humans on the screen trigger interest, confusion, perhaps even disgust or righteousness. You desire to express those emotions. Here we have a forum that tells you to do so, by all means, so long as you can follow certain constraints. This selects for certain emotions more than others. You come to the Motte when you want to experience that cluster of thoughts and feelings.
If this doesn't resonate with you, then why are you here? What drives you to come and prognosticate? When people accuse you of "doing a bit," they are confused at the mismatch between your sentiment and your actions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So then what’s your response for them taking an active position instead of remaining neutral and keeping their mouth shut?
It’s a bold lack of strategy, Cotton. They kind of picked the worst option.
No, I think the FBI is more likely to be low down on the continuum. Including flailing around with half-assed denials, regardless of what they know is true.
Not sure what you mean. But it sounds like your saying slider your not a conspiracy theorists they did lie to you and knew they were lying to you. Since when I google your meme it comes up as a bold strategy that worked.
I actually don’t mind saying Trump is bad and I’d prefer not to vote for him but I think we could have a lot of healing if more on the left started saying this was a bad thing our allies did to them.
That's what I was suggesting, yeah.
There's a Venn diagram. One circle, people who knew ahead of time. The other, people who loudly insisted it was fake. The guys in the middle are your conspiracy. I think this overlap is pretty small, but yeah, screw those guys.
The more I look...I dunno. I'm getting the impression that the FBI clammed up and thus mostly stayed out of the second circle. Still looking for examples of official statements.
Interesting. I had never seen before that someone from the fbi said it was real. But ya the intel thing I’ve seen.
Which makes Twitter look all the worse, yeah.
Also notice that the FBI guy got "no comment"ed almost immediately. I haven't found any official comments after that, which surprised me.
From what I've seen, the second circle is basically built around that open letter. Despite the fact that they have literally no evidence and are in full legal CYOA mode. It got picked up because the media coordinated or was pushed, or more likely (IMO) it was Too Good To Check.
I'll be honest. I am much more comfortable if there is no overlap in the Venn diagram. Not sure how plausible that actually is.
Hat tip Tyler Cowen for linking this twitter account, because otherwise, I wouldn't have seen this. Not the FBI directly here, but now I'm thinking about comparisons to the Steele dossier. Remember when that story first broke, and the line was that Comey was essentially forced to brief Trump on the matter, because the story had broken? And then, the fact that the FBI briefed Trump on it somehow became public news and was the talking point for a while, all supposedly building up the argument that it was all perfectly true and reliable?
...well, WTF happened here, then? Recall that this story broke in the Post laaaate in the campaign, surely after the point at which the intel community is already briefing both campaigns to some extent, particularly concerning defensive briefs related to foreign intelligence threats, including possible blackmail material (again, this was part of the justification used for the 'need' to brief Trump on the Steele dossier). Did Wray brief the Biden campaign on the possibility of blackmail from Ukrainian or Chinese actors leveraging whatever information was partially-public-knowledge from the laptop? If not, why not? If so, why wasn't that leaked on the news and taken as some sort of confirmation that it was all actually true and reliable?
Every single step of the way, they always treat people differently. Sometimes, it's because there are meaningful differences between situations, and I could imagine explanations being forthcoming for this one, but at some point, when everything keeps constantly breaking in favor of one direction over and over again (that direction being a weighted combination with a heavy weight being pro-FBI-institution and a somewhat smaller weight on anti-Trump/pro-Dem), when it is more and more clear that the rules are made up (or ignored) and consistency is impossible, the less credibility they'll have as an impartial arbiter of lawful activity.
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