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 -
It's quite affirming to see that a beat I haphazardly stumbled into generate this kind of positive feedback, so thank you for that.
I echo what @2rafa said, whether or not the 2020 election should be considered legitimate depends on the standards used. Some people unironically denounce any election where their preferred candidate does not win as illegitimate. But walking away from that extreme position, I would use prior elections as the baseline. I did affirmatively claim before that the 2020 election is one of the most secure slash "legitimate" we've ever had. That's not because I think it was conducted in a special way, but rather because it was by far the most scrutinized election we've ever had.
Prior election didn't get anywhere near as much attention, so I think agnosticism about their legitimacy would be more warranted given the relative lack of scrutiny they endured. For 2020 hold the position that there wasn't anything materially different that would warrant extra suspicion. I understand that lots of people would point to the various "covid rule changes" as reasons to be suspicious but for that to be true all three of these factors need to be established:
I've seen attempts to justify individual aspects of the above, but I haven't come across coherent explanations that address all three. After lots of opportunity, fair to say the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
(this is written under my first covid fog so please excuse any potential incoherence)
More options
Context Copy link