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
This is just grandstanding via toxoplasma. "The Dems impeached Trump so we've got to impeach Biden!" In the conversations I've had with people on this site who think there's a huge scandal here, I've never heard of any solid evidence about direct bribery other than the wishy-washy "money for the big guy" statement. On the point of "meetings for money", nothing Hunter did was worse than what Kushner flagrantly did during Trump's admin, and nobody even really questioned that. House Repubs haven't been able to get any better evidence after months of searching. There's basically 0 chance that they can convince 18 dem Senators to flip.
How is that wishy washy? You have to contort yourself into a pretzel to come to any other conclusion.
Because Republicans haven't been able to find any evidence to verify it despite looking very hard for years now.
This is just an incorrect statement.
They have found plenty of evidence. They haven’t found a smoking gun. But they also haven’t had complete access to bank records.
They've found evidence that Joe has taken meetings/calls with people at the request of his son, but not that anything ever came of these, or that Joe ever benefitted monetarily. Republicans have had subpoena power for years and have had a full investigation going for at least several months, and still haven't found the bribery part of the whole "bribery scandal."
Joe doesn’t personally need to benefit. If he directs payments to his family members that would be sufficient. And lo and behold his entire family got money — millions of dollars— for no apparent reason.
As late as October 2015 the state department sent emails stating it believed Ukraine under Shokin made significant anti corruption efforts. Indeed Nuland had sent Shokin a letter stating that then Secretary of State Kerry was impressed with Shokin personally.
The European Commission praised Shokin’s anti corruption progress nine days after Biden issued his ultimatum.
That is, both the Europeans and State believed Shokin was doing a good job. Yet Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.
Shokin was a problem for Burisma.
A credible FBI informant told the FBI Biden was paid to get Shokin fired.
Republicans entered the impeachment inquiry to grant incremental power to obtain bank records. If they can corroborate the amounts paid with what the informant told the FBI, then it seems Biden is dead to rights.
PS what are you talking about with years? They have had 9 months.
Here’s your source
https://nypost.com/2023/09/08/despite-bidens-claim-europeans-werent-trying-to-oust-ukraine-prosecutor-targeting-hunters-firm/
I’ve been hearing on Reddit for years that Shokin was corrupt and everyone wanted him fired. Turns out that was just Bidens team invention after they fired him.
Yep. To me this is the equivalent of the smoking gun. State loved Shokin. The Europeans loved Shokin. Then Biden got him fired and after that tunes changed.
Why did Joe get involved with the firing of an AG that was at worst not hindering anti corruption efforts? Well we have a witness claiming it was because he got paid millions.
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