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 -
Trump indicted with 4 counts over 2020 election
Hooooooo boy.
It took way longer than it should have to answer the question: “by whom?”
This is federal, and not another New York charge.
Cynical read is that Mr Garland is trying to distract the news cycle from talking about Hunter Biden or the FBI.
Cynical read is that you're always talking about Hunter Biden. Breitbart has written 134,000 articles mentioning Hunter Biden and pumps out like 5 or 6 a day. Fox News has written 260,000 articles about Hunter Biden between January 1st, 2020 and today. You'd be saying this if it had dropped last month, last week, or next year. When, exactly, should the indictment have been unsealed to satisfy you?
Ah, right. The answer is never, isn't it?
Sure, and how many articles have CNN, MSNBC, Et Al written about Trump?
My take from the beginning has been that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't think you can reasonably claim that Trump acted inappropriately by "mishandling classified information" "being a party to foreign influence" or "inciting violence and questioning the legitimacy of US elections" without implicating Clinton and Biden in even more serious crimes.
The crux of the issue is that the DNC has explicitly rejected the principle of equality before the law in favor of "rules for thee and not for me" and I don't think they realize just how dangerous a game they are playing.
They think it's perfectly safe. If they win, it's effectively illegal to challenge them and they get their permanent Democratic hegemony. If they don't win, they figure the Republicans will not retaliate in kind, or due to the deep state remaining in their hands will not be ABLE to retaliate in kind. And I cannot see the flaw in this reasoning.
...because in your heart of hearts you're one of them.
appeals to legality only work on people who see the legal system as legitimate.
By "effectively illegal to challenge them" I mean they can use the full force of the Federal government against challengers using the law as an excuse. Not that it is de jure illegal to challenge them, though a good number of conservatives tend to believe that too -- despite the system being obviously corrupt they accept its results as if it is not, and blame anyone on their own side who does not do so.
And?
are you really so afraid of being prosecuted or held at gunpoint?
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