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 -
"10% for the Big Guy" isn't nothing. If I got 10% of my son's wages, I would rather he not work at a pizza place and might encourage him to aim higher.
Lots of parents would push their kids to aim higher than working at a pizza place, if they had an education and family network contacts. Look, the Bidens are their own family and unless there's evidence that Joe stole government money and gave it to Hunter, or vice versa, what goes on is none of our business.
Taking 10% of money that you know, I know, the dogs in the street know, Hunter is going to spend like a drunken sailor on leave is only prudent, so the guy won't be left absolutely penniless. There has to be sorted out is this a bribe or is it just Hunter being a little bitch about Dad taking his allowance away or what, but that's what all the court cases are about.
If Hunter is obtaining his money illegally, Joe knows this, and Joe is taking 10%, that's enough to materially implicate Joe right there. It doesn't matter that Joe is taking the money for Hunter's benefit.
Yes obviously, but it affects the morality of it substantially if (a) Joe isn’t doing it for his personal enrichment, which is obvious and (b) his involvement relates solely to his attempt at preventing Hunter from immediately wasting all his income. In the same way, the morality of Trump keeping those classified documents after he left office depends quite substantially on whether he forgot them or whether he took them with the intention of selling them to a foreign power, for example.
There isnt a logical basis to cast Hunter’s Eastern European dealings as an attempt by Joe to enrich himself because ex-VPs can make more money in a single speech to Blackstone’s annual blah blah summit than Hunter ever made ‘being corrupt’. The numbers don’t check out, Biden can easily make $20m+ in his first year out of office.
Joe doing it to help his kid really doesn't make it substantially better than doing it for his personal enrichment. As for (b), it's clearly not true, failson Hunter doesn't get the cushy work without the big guy's support.
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