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 -
Are you suggesting that liberal partisans/Biden-supporters are not just as biased if not more so in the opposite direction? To quote the Russian Ambassador in Dr. Strangelove "Our source was the New York Times" or rather Time Magazine.
Both sides are biased here.
But it’s one side they severely lacks evidence for their position.
This is actually a very useful way to analyze any given controversial political issue. Did you know for example that claims of “systemic racism” in policing don’t hold up when the evidence is examined? Or workplace sexism?
Like the OP I feel like you're approaching this from the position that "the election must be presumed legitimate unless proved otherwise in a court of law" when the whole point of my reply is that no such obligation exists.
In America, we’ve long had national elections with low amounts of fraud. Our federal system makes it hard to rig national elections in any coordinated fashion.
So when there are allegations of rigged/stolen elections and no strong evidence is produced, it’s a safe bet people are lying.
You’re trying to make up some special standard of evidence for elections and I’m merely proposing we use the normal one of backing up claims with evidence.
A great deal of observation, documentation, recounting, investigation, and court cases shows the 2020 election almost certainly was not rigged or stolen.
The obligation that exists is simply basic epistemic rigor.
Trump, and many of his major promoters, don’t give a shit about epistemic rigor or good faith.
At least when the left lies to me they try to be subtle about it.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
I don't think anyone can deny that 2020 was a bit of a special case. And maybe it's all just "vibes" but personally I find it telling that those most vocally in favor of "the new normal" and opposed to implementing more agressive election integrity measures are also those who ostensibly benefited from said "special case". What do you think Occam's Razor would have to say about that?.
I agree with you that 2020 was a special case due to Covid and that we should have higher voter registration checks and other such measures, which are consistently opposed by the left.
But Occam’s Razor applied here seems more likely to lead to the theory that in an election with incredibly high scrutiny, Trump was as full of BS about 2020 as he was about 2016 with unfounded claims of major fraud. Trump’s well-documented antics in Georgia support such a theory of Trump’s true concern not being “integrity” per se.
Taking in the entirety of the circumstances, the stark lack of hard evidence for claims made by Trump and others and their demonstrated track record of buffoonery easily overpowers any bias or shenanigans by the left for which there is actual evidence.
Your link up there applies more to Trump than anyone else by far, in other words.
Another way of looking at it is that you and others have presented theories and suggestive evidence that 2020 was rigged in some meaningful way against Trump, but I have definitive evidence Trump has lied in the past about election fraud, that he personally has sought to meddle in a state’s election, and that the particular cases advanced by his MAGA associates fell apart upon examination.
In Bayesian terms, this is not a hard case. Not until someone can really meet @ymeskhout’s challenge and provide a solid case for meaningful fraud, not just suggestive/circumstantial evidence and possibilities.
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