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 -
On one hand yes. But, only Republicans voted to acquit and a mix of Republicans and Democrats voted to convict. I accept this as a display of partisan power rather than a display of innocence.
The old joke that a politician in a majority district could only lose if they were caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl comes to mind. Corrupt partisan supported by most of his fellows. Nothing more or less.
The fact that some Republicans turned on him is a black mark, but ultimately irrelevant.
Overstates things quite a bit. Two republicans voted to convict on any count(there were 16) in a chamber in which republicans hold a comfortable majority. Both of them were winners of the recent term length drawing(the Texas senate determines the lengths of senators terms by drawing straws; I couldn’t tell you why they do this) and so will not be up for election in the next cycle.
More options
Context Copy link
you could do something crazy like look at the presented evidence in his impeachment trial
everyone doesn't need to have a strong opinion on a topic they know next to nothing about
sadly, most responses here are some form of "I know next to nothing about this, but because surface level knowledge about these 3 things means I think X"
I read political news and vaguely have some sense that he is famous for his corruption. But of course the media lies like the lying liars they are. Maybe I fell for their tricks.
But as a terminal political news addict, I refuse to personally review the evidence in this state-level impeachment case. I will bow out of that task and also not take back any claims regarding the power of naked partisanship. Which this might be.
Or maybe the prosecutors were such bumbling morons that only all Democrats and a few select Republicans would lower themselves to performatively vote guilty. And the other Republicans who voted to acquit were honestly voting their conscience.
I guess that's possible. I'm not so invested in Texas state politics that I will be critically evaluating the primary sources.
What is the value in forming opinions based on the 2nd hand summations of agenda-driven liars? I haven't found "political news" to be an accurate reflection of reality beyond a billboard for what the powers that be want you to think today (or think about today).
For a man who is "famously corrupt," it certainly tells us something that despite a lot of motivation, millions of dollars, and subpoena power, the best they could dig up on Ken Paxton was a corruption scheme over a $25,000 political donation 2 years before an alleged "return," and then a kitchen remodel whereby the accusers and investigators didn't even bother to find out if his kitchen was, in fact, remodeled.
A bribe where phrased as someone "paying for your kitchen remodel" doesn't actually require you remodel your kitchen. But there has to be some quid for the quo.
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