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 -
I'm not responsible for whatever other arguments people are making -- mine is true.
If by 'eligible voters' you mean 'the ones that voted in accordance with State law', then no, probably not. If you mean something else, you should be working towards legislative reform to make it easier for people to (legally) vote -- as in Oregon I suppose.
For the sake of reducing confusion, if you’re replying to their thread, it helps to distinguish.
And by eligible voters, I mean those which are entitled and not otherwise forbidden to vote.
I think it's quite obvious that opinions I state in a thread are mine and not somebody else's -- do I need to add a disclaimer?
If an otherwise eligible voter submits his ballot in the form of a homemade crayon-drawing, it is not a legal ballot and should not be counted. Same goes for mailins, in jurisdictions where the legislature has not passed a law allowing them and defining the procedures for their acceptance.
I agree, they should not be counted, perhaps allowing for some amount of reliance of voters on reasonable expectations. Obviously no voter should expect that a homemade ballot counts.
But it would still be true that the complaint against them would be “this is not procedurally appropriate” and not “this is not an accurate rendition of voter intent” or “this is fraudulent”. Those have specific meanings.
The fraudulent part was when Democratically-aligned bureaucrats conspired to have the votes (which happened to be disproportionately Democratic) cast & counted.
The ballots were illegal, which the people taking the votes didn't like -- so they counted them anyways.
How is "counts invalid ballots" not central "election fraud"? (particularly when that act favours the counters' preferred candidate)
I think you're subtly shifting "invalid" there. A ballot that accurately represent the intent of an eligible & qualified voter who has voted only once is not invalid in the sense required to be fraud. It's certainly not central to election fraud, that conveys the notion of stuffed ballots or dead people voting or multiple-voting.
As with the homemade crayon ballot, the person submitting that ballot is not committing (deliberate) fraud -- the person who counts it is. What is 'central to election fraud' if not 'counting ballots that do not comply with local laws'? (particularly in this case, as the ballots in question were known to skew D)
Counting a ballot submitted at 9:05 when the polls were meant to close is a pretty good example of non-central.
Central to fraud would be something that changes the result as compared to an accurate count of eligible voters each of which voted once.
For example if central fraud:
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link