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 -
https://apple.news/APEuOPHP2TWqeUTR_h8QypA
So the Republican speaker of the house has decided to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s business dealings with hunter. I have serious doubts that this will go very far as democrats still control the senate. This looks like an attempt to stir up the base for re-election season.
I personally see this as a big distraction as we have a lot of very serious problems that need to be addressed. BRICs, Taiwan, Ukraine, inflation, and
If you don’t punish the most obvious bribery scandal at the national level in probably a century, then you clearly invite more bribery. All of the other things are more important in the short term, but for the long term health of the government you must punish obvious bribery.
Also, it isn’t clear it won’t go anywhere. If the inquiry can show (1) that Joe Biden personally benefited, (2) that State Dept didn’t want to fire the prosecutor (which seems like it was already proven) and (3) there were payments to Joe Biden shortly afterwards, then (4) Democrats would be forced with either trying to rally behind an obviously corrupt unpopular president or dumping said president for someone who might not be as tainted.
The real question is can the inquiry provided enough hard evidence to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Right now the Republicans have enough evidence that most people believe Biden is a crook. The question is whether this inquiry will turn that belief into knowledge. If so, then even democrats will vote to convict (or more likely Democrats like Obama will pull a Barry Goldwater)
I don't think there is enough evidence, aside from Biden being way too lenient with Hunter. And the Democrats are not going to want even the notion of corruption associated with the party, as it would be if they dumped Biden or even co-operated with this effort. Their only bet is to keep denying and keep fighting.
Besides, remember Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and the big name feminists who made jokes about giving Bill a blow-job in return for what he and the Democratic Party did/would do for 'women's rights' in power. There's a lot of rotten behaviour both parties will tolerate in Their Guy if he's in power and seems the best chance for them to hang on to that power.
What is the evidence that isn’t compelling to you?
Is it the fact that multiple people have stated Biden was to get money doesn’t seem fishy? Was it Biden using aliases to set up calls with Burisma while CCing Hunter not being blatant enough? Was it that the state department believed in the AG that Biden fired in contradiction to state department policy being just an internal disagreement? Was it the massive string of corporate shells set up that triggered 72 money laundering alarm bells being just a way for Hunter to avoid taxes? Was it the statement by an FBI informant that is consistent with those shell corporations being just a statement from an informant? It must just be normal in the Biden family for all members to get paid for nothing from Hunter’s activities. Do we just accept that Biden met with people at Cafe Millano to just discuss the weather? Is it that to date no one has been able to prove any alleged facts are incorrect but maybe at some point someone will?
I’ve left out other evidence. There is a pattern and practice here.
If they have solid evidence, then the impeachment may well go ahead.
The problem then is, will they impeach? All this allegedly happened when Joe was VP in the last but one administration. Can a sitting president be impeached and removed for what he might have done in a different role?
This is genuinely legally interesting to me, if anyone has any news, views or informed opinion (or even uninformed speculation!)
I've been told repeatedly that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and the Presidents can be impeached for anything and everything that Congress considers a problem -- is this only true if the president's initials are D.J.T., or what?
I mean Clinton got indicted for getting a blowjob.
So you're saying that the middle initial has to be J?
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