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 -
Can we please stop with this? This type of claim is just absurdly bad faith.
Trump attempted to use some esoteric lawfare to force a debate about the merits of election interference claims.
Until such time as Trump's supporters unstorm the capitol and Trump didn't try to have his VP declare him the winner despite losing, it seems entirely reasonable to say that Trump tried to seize power. "It was to force a debate" is just another flavor of Trumpist cope deploy to reconcile the gap between their self-image as patriotic Americans and the reality that they prioritize loyalty to their wannabe caudillo.
Trump did not try to have Pence declare him the winner.
John Eastman may have suggested to Pence that he had the authority to do this (although as far as I can tell this is hearsay), but the plan was to have Pence reject some of the electoral slates, and force a debate within the house over the merits of the fraud claims.
It has been nearly FOUR YEARS since this happened. The evidence for this is well documented, and the plan has internal coherence.
Please just spend a few minutes reading about this and try to read it with the context that the people involved aren’t stupid, and their plan wasn’t lifted from a children’s cartoon.
If the election is thrown into the House because neither side gets a majority in the Electoral College, that is the opposite of "forcing a debate over the merits of the fraud claims". The process for forcing a debate over the fraud claims is an objection to a State certificate under the rules set out in the Electoral Count Act. Such objections were made, in the cases of AZ and PA debated, and rejected in Congress on January 6/7 2021. (It was during the AZ debate that the rioters entered the Capitol building and forced an adjournment.)
The contingent election that Eastman was trying to use isn't a procedure for debating who won the Electoral College vote - it is an alternative procedure specified by the Constitution for use when it is clear that no-one won the Electoral College vote. Consistently with most of Trump's strategy, it isn't an attempt to litigate the counting of the votes cast in November, it is an attempt to throw them all out and decide the election without reference to them. (In this case, a party-line House vote with unequal weighting of votes). In fact, the simple, obvious reading of the Constitution is that it doesn't even allow a debate - the Constitution says that the House should vote "immediately".
More options
Context Copy link
What should I read?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He was aiming for more than a debate, I think. He wanted to overturn the election because he thought it was stolen from him. If it was, that is a reasonable position to hold!
But saying he just wanted to force a debate seems to ignore his own words. That's not how Trump operates. He is pretty straightforward on things like this. Thats why he put pressure on Georgia and Pence. To recognize the election was stolen and act accordingly.
Calling him a danger to democracy is hyperbole, but claiming he just wanted to force a debate on the merits, seems plainly wrong. He didn't want a debate, he wanted action.
The difference between “Jack slandered Jill” and “Jack warned the community about Jill” is evidence of Jill’s misdeeds.
The difference between “Don stole the election” and “Don rescued the rigged election” is evidence that the election was rigged.
Claiming the election had been stolen would’ve been reasonable if there’d been compelling evidence for it. Doing so without evidence is the same thing as trying to stealing the election. If Trump had succeeded in overturning the election, it would’ve been stolen. Like if Jack’s convinced everyone that Jill is wicked without evidence, he’s slandered her.
Sure, I don't believe Trump is correct. Which is why I said "if it was".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say the real intent on J6 was to deliberately engineer a constitutional crisis, the Capitol mob was just a convenient, possibly useful tool Trump didn't intend (but also didn't have strong feelings about, thus sitting back and letting it play out until it failed). The original effort, we must recall, was this: pressure directly from Trump and abetted by what courts have determined to be lies, onto Mike Pence, to take what scholars also consider a plainly illegal action, which pressure was cynical and self-serving. For what it's worth, I happen to think that this effort would fail. Most Dems seem to think that the SC would obviously side with Trump, against the law, simply because they were selected by him, but I don't think this would have been the case. However, triggering a constitutional crisis on purpose is, in a word, bad. Especially the reason why. It was not some big important issue worth fighting for... it was just self-interest, pure and unadulterated.
But yes, Democrats making it about "democracy" is also a little bit cynical, and a bit misleading. The core message is actually "We can't trust Trump's morality with power". Said morality might threaten democracy. Probably does. Just not as directly. The other parallel that needs to be mentioning is the view that Republicans have been trying to subvert the actual election mechanics as well, via gerrymandering, VRA-violating discriminatory efforts, and general denialism to question turnout. I think the objective record of Republicans on this front is mixed. I don't think it's an existential-type threat.
Thus, the calculation to call it an attack on democracy itself is a political ploy, and somewhat dangerous. On balance, I'd rate it as less dangerous than election denialism (one of the worst poison pills), but still dangerous in practice to the stated goal of actually preserving democracy. Now, part of this rests on a key assumption: Would the SC actually have sided with Trump? If yes, the concern is at least logical/understandable but you can also see how the seeds of devaluing the system in a misguided attempt to defend it are laid.
Indeed, the supreme court chose not to when Trump's favorite state AG sued Pennsylvania over allegations they were certifying a fraudulent election.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The esoteric legal theories were one thing.
The actual evacuation of Congress during the process was another, and you can't possibly call that lawfare.
Notably J6 harmed his esoteric legal theories. Now maybe you think Trump is a dumb dumb. But if his lawfare had any chance of working, J6 riot killed it.
More options
Context Copy link
That's the other half of the statement: I can very easily deny that "Donald Trump tried..." to do that.
He's not a charismatic genius that can manipulate a crowd into doing his bidding with veiled statements and subtle insinuations. He didn't ask for people to storm the capital, so I have a hard time believing that he tried to get people to storm the capital.
Oh I agree. I don't think he asked for anyone to storm the capital.
Then again, Biden and Bernie didn't ask anyone to try to torch a Federal Courthouse.
I happen to think we ought to hold we hold political leaders responsible for their factions. It is their job not only to represent, but also to channel and restrain, their supporters. And I think the left should have done much more do during BLM and the right should have done much more so than 1/6.
That all said, a consistent belief that political leaders aren't responsible in such a way is palatable too. But after all all the ink spilled on why the Dems wouldn't take responsible for BLM, I'm skeptical.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump had literally nothing to do with that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can describe almost any attempt to seize power this way. The Reichstag Fire Decree was just some esoteric lawfare to force a debate about the dangers of communists. Nobody thought the 12th amendment was vague prior to 2020.
You can go both ways. My tax deductions are an attempt to topple the united states government by depriving them of necessary capital to fund the work they are doing.
Driving to the grocery store in my ICE vehicle is an attempt to melt the polar ice caps and flood the coastal cities and cause massive deaths.
Golf is me trying to kill all of the bald eagles by hitting them with golf balls.
etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link