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 -
Days before the December meeting at which Biden is supposed to have demanded the firing.
By the time Shokin is actually fired in March, essentially everyone has turned against him. There is timestamped publically-available information that the EU, the IMF, Victoria Nuland, Shokin's deputy Vitaly Kasko, Radio Free Europe (US government-owned), the Kyiv Post and various Ukrainian good-government groups all praised the firing when it happened.
The 2-3 month gap between Biden demanding Shokin be fired within 6 hours and the time Shokin was actually fired is inconvenient for both the pro- and anti-Biden theories of the case, as is the fact that the proximate cause of Shokin going was Kasko resigning on February 15th.
An even more bizzare complication is that Shokin applied for a freezing order against Zlochevsky's personal assets (the founder of Burisma, although he had sold most of his shares and was no longer an executive by the time Hunter Biden joined the board) on 4th February. As far as I can see, this was the first public move in the Zlochevsky/Burisma investigation since Shokin was appointed.
That seems consistent with Joe changing policy instead of the other way around.
More options
Context Copy link
So, your position is that Biden asked for the firing in December and three to four months later, Shokin was fired due to a change in public opinion, almost as if a whisper campaign had changed something behind the scenes. Some good luck that Biden was out ahead of the pack in thinking Shokin should go.
As far as I can see, there are basically three narratives consistent with the publicly-available information.
As I was trying to say in my earlier post, none of these are particularly plausible. But whatever Joe Biden's motives were for making the demand in December, it was neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of Shokin's firing in March. Something else was going on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ya the time gap is interesting. But it’s not that long. I believe at the end you left off that Shokin froze assets of the Burisma boss.
Of course there always was a simple solution to this if Joe was acting in good faith. He could have told Hunter to resign. And I don’t see how Joe wouldn’t have the power to strongman Hunter into resigning.
Ex-boss. The Burisma investigation related to crimes committed while Zlochevsky was boss, but Zlochevsky had sold Burisma before Hunter Biden joined the board. The UK SFO unfroze Burisma's UK accounts in 2015. The pro-Biden theory is that this is because the evidence of corporate criminality against Burisma (as opposed to personal criminality against Zlochevsky) was thin. The anti-Biden theory is that this is because Shokin's predecessor had failed to file necessary paperwork.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link