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's a totally fair comment. We'd definitely need to have a conversation about being more consistent about sentencing, too -- I just noticed that Patraeus did something sort of similar to Trump and ended up in a guilty plea deal with 2 years probation and a fine, though it seems people were upset it wasn't more harsh, and it definitely seems like it should have been. Of course I dunno if Trump would accept a plea deal like that.
I don't think Biden's mishandling rises to Trump's level because though there certainly was some lack of care, it didn't seem to be super deliberate and there didn't seem to be the same kind of lying going on. Clinton on the other hand... man, I really think she should have had some major consequences. There were some lies, though I can't recall if any of them were to the feds or just the public, but certainly there was a lack of care strong enough to reach the kind of "criminal negligence" type of standard. Like, in practical terms, we have to be honest that a lot of high level people are positively swimming in classified documents, and documents in general, and things unfortunately do get lost from time to time. But there's certainly some line where people are deliberately and knowing sharing stuff, which is the worst (and even more if they lie about it to the feds), and some lower level where it's just egotistical but also dangerous retention, and then accidents below that. That first category I think there really needs to be some sort of mandatory action standard. Also, it would be very entertaining to play the "mandatory minimums" game that's put so many poor people in jail, and apply that to the powerful. Could be popular as well as fair!
I'm actually not so sure on this one - I don't think it'd be possible to get a really clear view of how bad his case was without exploring the Hunter corruption issue. Biden lies all the time, and I don't think we have a real picture of exactly what went on there. We know that classified documents were being stored in an insecure manner, but we don't actually know how serious it was because it all got brushed under the rug so quickly. It might be a big deal for the big guy, but it might also just be Biden's failing mental state. All that is ultimately an academic concern, however - the partisan disparity is so great as to eclipse any other concerns.
Though with all that said I don't feel terribly bad about classified documents being leaked - I'm a big supporter of Julian Assange, Ed Snowden, Binney, Drake, etc. I like it when classified documents are mishandled and leaked, in part because those leaked documents usually reveal some kind of malicious or nefarious government behaviour. As far as I'm concerned, it was a good thing when details of PRISM got leaked, and likewise when Collateral Murder was leaked, so it feels kind of hollow for me to say I'm looking forward to prosecution for document mishandling.
I mean, he voluntarily undertook the search for documents, and they found a couple at an old office of his as well. To me, that seems fairly organic. It's of course possible that the whole thing is a smokeshow for some other, far more serious classified doc location or exposure, but I judge that unlikely. There was Hur assigned to look into things so it wasn't like the whole thing disappeared. And Hur did in fact look at the exact same Trump route, too! Biden's memoir writer, who didn't have clearance. Sounds like he did share some stuff, but evidence is so-so, and the writer deleted some recordings. However, apparently he had plausible, innocent sounding reasons (we can leave to the reader to judge if this is true though), cooperated a fair amount (supposedly this led to them recovering a good chunk of some deleted stuff). So anyways all this to say I trust Hur to have had decent access to what he needed and to have come to a relatively accurate conclusion that Biden was sloppy and careless but not big-criminal level. Trump on the other hand often had his lawyers stonewall, some of his people moved boxes, deleted footage, etc. even after things started, and maybe even got job perks for accepting lawyer help from Trump (and thus presumably buying them out).
In theory the system is supposed to identify degree of harm to the US if the info is exposed, but as you mention some of the reasoning is awfully consequentialist, rating "we did something bad that would make people hate us" as a degree of harm by itself, which is somewhat circular reasoning. To me the more compelling argument is more about how when things leak often enough, sometimes from a counterintel perspective you almost have to assume that merely unsecured information == leaked information. And that's a major, legitimate pain. Aside from confidential sources occasionally being outed. At least people like Snowden kinda-sorta tried to curate what they released with these considerations, whereas simple classified info exposure does not even have those protections.
The problem here is that I don't actually have any faith that the people doing the searching and investigation are doing so with a desire to actually find the truth. While I can't actually prove that Biden's case was soft-walked, there's a comparable case that happened just recently - the Hunter Biden laptop. Given your level of knowledge I'm going to assume you're familiar with the details of the case, but they paint a picture of an FBI that's thoroughly unwilling to go after Biden despite impeccably documented evidence of serious crimes. While they did eventually prosecute Hunter after it became a major issue and was leaked to the press, this only happened as a result of serious public pressure and attention. The FBI actually had his laptop for quite some time before the contents were leaked to Giuliani, and they didn't do anything about it. We know from the contents of the laptop that there were several unarguable and undeniable crimes (the doing crack part at the least) as well as traces of what seemed like an obvious influence-selling case... but the government did absolutely nothing with it, only intervening when the contents of the laptop started showing up in the media. Furthermore, there were multiple figures in the intelligence community who came out to knowingly lie about the origination of the laptop in order to help Biden's election chances. At the same time, we know that the government has actually been reprimanded in court for fucking with and manipulating evidence in the Trump documents case. The two sides are very clearly not being treated equally.
I freely admit that there's no direct evidence of serious wrongdoing here, but the last time the FBI came out and said that a Biden hadn't really done anything worth being charged for they were lying through their teeth and were only forced to recant once the evidence became public. That they were forced to actually admit something happened at all is enough to make me extremely suspicious - but I don't know what they could really do to assuage my doubts. Politicisation is a hell of a drug, and it means that I don't really have any trust or faith that they're telling the truth THIS time, when a lie would be perfectly in character and advance their political goals (for the record I believe these goals are anti-Trump rather than anti-Republican).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's good to see someone more or less on the other side willing to admit it. The problem remains that there were not, in fact, major consequences, that the way she escaped those consequences drastically reduced trust in the system as a whole, and that similar failures have multiplied over the last few decades. At this point, it's hard to see why we shouldn't simply continue to heighten the contradictions.
One of the major reasons I've supported Trump, from the start, is that I hate how establishment politicians are above the law. I am entirely willing to see Trump mulched by the justice system, but I see no reason why I or any other Red Triber should support this process in any way. Let the Establishment fight uphill for the rule of law they have consistently undermined and evaded. If they fail, then at least my champions will enjoy the benefits they have heretofore kept for themselves. If they succeed, then we should ensure they do so at the cost of significant investment, making it that much harder for them to evade these new precedents in the future.
I am willing to accept Trump going free. I am happy to accept Trump and most of the rest of Washington going to jail. I see no reason to accept Trump going to jail alone.
That's for sure some helpful perspective!
I really can't bring myself to join either party still. On the Democratic side, it really feels like they don't actually want my vote. As a small example, they've effectively purged all pro-life people from the party, and seem to have lost the tolerance for middle-grounders. Even though in my personal morals, I'm pro-life with only rape/murder/incest exceptions, as a matter of policy I like the three-trimester approach just fine due to the difficulty of finding universal moral agreement and practical considerations. But man, the way I've been treated like scum for saying such... or the condescension of some presumably well-meaning 'wokists', or the disdain for religion, or the holier-than-thou preaching, it's a lot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link