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 -
That would be nice, but, I'm not holding my breath.
I do too. But not everyone thinks the way we do. A lot of people don't care at all (or at least, they don't care beyond whatever their personal opinion of Trump is).
I'm planning a post that touches on the notion of people acting on principle vs people acting out of raw personal interest, and this topic dovetails nicely with that. Sometimes people really do act on pure principle alone, even though that can be difficult to recognize when their principles are foreign to you. But there's two sides to that. Sometimes they don't act on principle - sometimes they just act on self interest, or vindictiveness, or whatever. And it can be segmented from issue to issue - someone can have sincerely held convictions on one question and complete indifference towards another.
How many average people off the street actually have a sincerely held stance on the injustice of overt political lawfare? I don't know. Probably not that many. I wouldn't want to wager any serious stakes on it.
How can you tell the difference between overt political lawfare and the conviction of a felon by a jury of peers?
Wouldn't the assumption that any criminal punishment of a political candidate be considered 'lawfare' make it impossible to punish criminal politicians?
I'd say that when the incumbent prosecutor's election campaign was run on the basis of his experience going after that same candidate as part of a highly-politicized state AG's office, you have a pretty big tell that subsequent cases are more likely to be lawfare than legitimate.
Yes, the prosecutor ran on getting Trump and then went and did it. But none of that is relevant to the court system; the courts assume the integrity of the prosecutors and of the lower courts, and arguing that they lack integrity is a losing argument (even it it doesn't get you a contempt citation, which it might)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I’ll bite the bullet and say that the leading candidates for major office shouldn’t be prosecuted for procedural crimes.
More options
Context Copy link
It'd be nice to start with :
A law that is regularly and consistently applied, in this context, against normal people, for this level of sentence.
A judge that either does not have a record of donating significantly to the political opponent of That Politician, and does not have immediate family who fundraise against That Politician Specifically.
A prosecutor that did not campaign on finding the crime for the man.
That's circumstantial evidence of bias.
This is why it's important that they convinced 12 jury members.
I trust the jury to make the right decision, and they convicted Trump of felonies because he's a criminal.
That's interesting, I just got this notification around June 1 23:00 EDT.
The actual post you made, not so interesting. Is this supposed to even be a response to or defense of the question you sent to start? Or is it just the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club, and no conviction by a jury could possibly be overt political lawfare?
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