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 -
The SCOTUS protestors had nowhere near anywhere near the level of support for their actions. Some leftists may have supported their cause (rejecting Kavanaugh), but no major political figure egged them on for their methods. For contrast, Trump egged on J6, and only stopped supporting it once he realized it was a PR disaster. He also still claims the 2020 election was stolen.
My point isn't to prove that the Democrats are justified in anything they do, it's to argue against Rightists who are chugging the negative-partisanship Koolaid by the gallon, pointing at Leftist transgressions, some real, many exaggerated, and pretending the Right isn't doing stuff that's on-par or even worse.
Trump did not support J6. He started trying to dissuade his supporters as soon as it became clear they were breaching the capital. ‘Muh J6’ is absolutely a narrative, and it’s a narrative that is 1) false and 2) serves a specific purpose of framing the rise in negative partisanship/democratic backsliding as being mostly the right’s fault. Factually, domestic spying and targeting the opposition as major features of democrat’s regimes is something that dates to the Obama admin; the current round is an escalation of an existing trend and not a new idea, or a response to changing circumstances in 2020 or 2021.
And he is allowed to believe this. It’s not an offense against democracy to believe that a particular election was badly administered or rigged. It’s not one to claim that, even if you happen to be wrong(as Trump is; even if Georgia or Michigan was stolen, he’s been running out the Bailey so hard that it doesn’t become a truth). Democrats make shit up about red states not being democracies constantly, and have for years and years, rather than admit that they’re just genuinely less popular.
Domestic spying dates back to at least the J Edgar Hoover days, a lot of the modern stuff is pretty weak and tame all things considered, though that doesn't make it right. I don't think it's really too relevant here though.
Your narrative about Trump and J6 seems false to me. Narrative is tricky to pin down of course, so beyond narrative, many of the actual words you are repeating are objectively untrue. And I will prove it. And I never want to hear this again, quite frankly.
I'm not even going to go into the hearsay too much, nor even planning before J6 by some smaller groups. These are at least the basic facts: The last few sentences of Trump's long speech ending a bit after 1pm talk about how he wants people to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol to give the weaker Republicans some "pride and boldness", to make their voices heard, and how the country is at risk. Allegedly (this is a bit unclear) he wanted to go too (he said things like "let's" and "we" in the speech) but the Secret Service said no. So he goes back to the White House and watches TV for a few hours, meaning he is watching what everyone else is watching. Trump disputes this, but watching TV seems highly, highly likely given Trump's well-known habits, though it's possible he missed a bit of the earliest stuff. He then tweets out a replay of the speech. At any rate, police lines are getting pushed back and in retreat since at least the 1:30 range, they are broken up in the 2-2:30 range and a lockdown is declared. In terms of TV, it seems most channels were broadcasting speeches right up until a little after 2 when both parts of congress went into recess and the aforementioned lockdowns started. Right in that time frame (2:24 pm) Trump tweets out a tweet saying Pence doesn't have courage to protect the country. Evacuations are starting in this same time frame of House, Pence, Pelosi, etc. and also in that same timeframe we get the first people breaking into the building. In the end we know many lawmakers only missed some rioters by a matter of minutes. So the Pence tweet is kind of right as things are going down, but some TV coverage has been varied, though it seems clear that by this point most channels have been showing some sort of breach. For reference, here is the CBS coverage that day. I can't find the whole Fox coverage but at least one clip from 2:39pm included the same footage and understanding of events.
So 2:38, now it's pretty blatantly obvious on TV that shit is going down, you can see Trump tweets:
You claimed:
This is clearly wrong. Notice what words do not appear at all in the tweet: go home, stop, don't do this; nothing of the sort. Just "hey be peaceful". That's not the same thing.
To be clear, what exactly is on TV at the time? CBS shows at 2:30 protesters in the building, (though a breach was clearly first shown and noted at 2:20), and some live video of them wandering around one of the rooms, maybe the Rotunda? Most of the video available is of course of the people outside because that's where the camera crews are. TV watchers already know Pence is being evacuated. Big chevrons and titles on screen clearly say the Capitol has been breached. The anchors are saying very clearly whoa, no one is supposed to be in there. It's hard to know how peaceful/violent the protests are because no cameras other than I guess the one (presumably live feed?) inside. A bit later of course we get some reports of some shots fired (Ashli Babbitt) and then on TV over the next hour or so we see a mixture of videos and photos of people arrested, other video of lawmakers with gas masks, others of barricades in the House, etc. They get McCarthy on the phone for a bit, reports are mixed. Though McCarthy does say: "From what I know and what I was able to view, I know people are being hurt" (later interview on CBS, he expressed the same in a 3:05 interview live on Fox News). Worth noting however, that this isn't broadcast to CBS at least until about 20 minutes later. During all this time, we can clearly see on TV that people are inside the Capitol, though there are still some crowds outside.
3:13pm shortly after McCarthy is on TV via call-in, Trump tweets again:
Notice, again, nothing about going home here! Sure, there's a call against violence, especially not against cops. There's no "dissuading" going on here. Clearly he's aware that at least something is happening. There's scattered TV reports about maybe this is going to turn into an occupation, some noise about maybe the National Guard is going to show up, etc. It's again very obvious that at least some protesters are in the building.
Trump doesn't tweet anything else in the whole time. He doesn't start recording a video message about how they should "go home in peace" until 4pm.
So in summary: You could plausibly claim Trump didn't want violence, you can plausibly claim a fair amount of things. But it's very clear that Trump certainly didn't try very hard at all to dissuade any of this from happening. He called for the march, and for someone who was bragging on TV all the time about how he would send the National Guard to inner cities because of violence, "when the looting starts the shooting starts" and things of that nature, it is painfully clear that he did not have anything like that sort of reaction, and certainly wasn't on the phone calling (remember he IS the president at the moment!) for troops or a strong response or anything of the sort. We don't know many specifics about Trump and Meadows that afternoon, but according to Meadows' texts (chief of staff, usually is in close contact with the President constantly) he both had been texted extensively about how messed up things are and was in contact with the President at least as early as 2:53, so as of the 3:13 tweet we can reasonably assume they were aware of the substance of what was going on. Making the "I didn't know" defense completely indefensible.
Furthermore, it's very clear in several places that Trump wanted Pence to take a very specific action on January 6th and said as much. That's not a general feeling about things being rigged. It's a clear advocacy for not certifying!
His words were "PEACEFULLY make your voice heard" -- I don't get the feeling that you know/care too much about the actual facts here.
My comment makes it very clear that I'm not claiming Trump deliberately advocated for violence in this instance. If you think I'm insinuating that, you didn't finish reading the comment. The original claim was that Trump tried to dissuade the protesters ASAP, and I think I clearly demonstrated that the claim was laughably false. My paraphrasing was emphasizing that the march TO the Capitol as a pressure tactic was Trump's idea. Going INTO the Capitol was not. But once they were IN the Capitol building, he did not really try very hard and not very quickly to encourage them to leave.
How is the word PEACEFULLY not an attempt to dissuade violence ASAP? (like, before they even went over there!)
If TPTB wanted Trump to manage things on the ground minute by minute, maybe the secret service should have taken him to the Capitol like he asked?
Dude, don't move the goalposts. I was very, very clear.
Was the claim in question. I even quoted it out specifically. It doesn't mention violence, only breaching the Capitol building. If you'd like me to break it down even further, according to its two logically prominent parts:
As soon as it became clear they were breaching the Capitol (I gave a good timeline for when this was the case, and it was obvious Trump was watching TV during at least a good portion of this time) -> Trump started trying to dissuade his supporters (I listed the two tweets out which do NOT in fact dissuade the supporters of "breaching the Capitol" at any point, they only encourage people not to get hurt which is NOT the same thing, and furthermore there was almost an hour and a half gap between when this was first plainly evident and when he first said anything resembling "go home", meaning when he started recording the video at 4pm (and even then chose the video and not a tweet))
More broadly, in the preceding sentence, the user claimed "Trump did not support J6". I think a more fair answer is that Trump wanted some political pressure, but didn't have any specific desire to breach the Capitol or do something beyond a massive protest. At least, there's little to no evidence of this being the case. However, once a breach happened and was obvious, he didn't really disapprove very strongly -- or else he, like virtually every other political figure, would have made some plea for it to stop right away, which he did not. He dragged his feet about it for quite a while. So at best, you can claim, supported by the facts, that Trump mildly disapproved of J6, on the day it happened. That's the strongest permissible claim that matches the evidence we have. Painting a narrative that he actively disapproved of J6 is not at all consistent with any of his actions.
Now, moving on from the realm of straight facts and near-certain probabilities into opinion... A narrative definitely exists on the left that he was some super-plotter and wanted the whole thing to happen. I did not say this. I don't think it's correct! I don't think he was really happy about it happening either. I think he was exactly the most likely case -- he wanted some big protest to happen, it got bigger than he thought, but he was pretty apathetic about it getting bigger than he thought. He definitely wanted Pence to take a specific action and not certify. I think that apathy in the face of the Capitol break-in is plenty enough to be upset with Trump about and consider it in the broader context of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick and undermining the election in the process was a breach of his oath of office, in my personal opinion. I think reasonable people can come to different conclusions about that whole aspect, narrative-wise.
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
Not, strictly speaking, about the Cavanaugh disaster, but there's no shortage of left-aligned public misbehavior to choose from during the Trump years:
"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
"This is my call to action, here. Please don't just come here and go home, go to the Hill today. Get up and please get in the face of some congresspeople." Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength." Hillary Clinton
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link