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 -
Which is the correct position to take for someone who is pro-democracy and thinks Trump is a threat to democracy? Should they be pro or anti assassination? You seem to be simultaneously mocking both stances.
The correct position is to realize that “Trump is trying to end democracy by getting more votes than his opponent by appealing to more voters by suggesting policies that provide material improvements to their lives and the lives of their children” is an absurd one.
Trump is not a “threat to democracy”. This is why there is no coherence to be found among the supporting or downstream arguments around that.
It's not incoherent to think that Trump is a danger to democracy. It might be wrong but it's not incoherent.
You'd obviously be familiar with the Hitler example. He won a legitimate election, and then after he was in power made himself dictator. Or you could look at Hugo Chavez, or Robert Mugabe. There's plenty of precedent for people seizing power fairly and then retaining it illegitimately.
Now, you would obviously counter "Trump is not Hitler", and I would agree with you. But different people can have different opinions, even if those opinions are wrong. There are absolutely people - lots of them - who believe that Trump is a danger to democracy, and it is a coherent belief to hold.
And so I ask again: should those people support murdering him?
These are all poor comparisons to make. When people say "Trump is a danger to democracy" it reveals a lot of ignorance about the structure of the American government. Three-branched Federal government with a bicameral legislature, the tradition of judicial review, and codependent powers distributed across the different branches (the most important being that Congress has to pay for everything) means that it would be close to impossible to make oneself a dictator in the American system from a structural perspective. You can't flip it all on its head with 51% of the vote and some clever executive orders. You'd need what amounts to multiple constitutional amendments on top of a court not only packed but FULL of sycophantic non-lawyers. This just isn't anywhere near the realm of truth or possibility - especially for Trump who is easily distracted on his policy priorities and only has four years to get all of that done.
For some good precedent, remember the 9-0 ruling against Obama for attempting to make some pretty ho-hum appointments during a Senatorial recess.
"Trump is a danger to democracy" is a very emotionally dressed up version of "orange man bad."
More options
Context Copy link
Coherent? Sure i guess. Supported by facts? Not really. That is, it is ridiculous
Ok. But should they support his assassination, given their opinions of the man?
You need to be extremely beyond sure sure. So no I don’t think anyone can truly say that. And even then I’m not sure it makes sense. Assassination frequently is bad for the politics of the people who engage in it.
More options
Context Copy link
No, because then you support extra-judicial violence in a democratic system predicated on state monopoly of violence. By that logic, anyone who really thinks that X-group or Y-person is really, really, really not good has permission to kill their enemies.
At what point (if any) of his political career do you think the assassination of Hitler would be justified by his opponents?
I'll reframe your question thusly;
At what point did Hitler's authority become illegitimate and unable to be corrected by the functions of the German state?
I think the Enabling Acts of 1933 were pretty much that point. Explicitly extra-legislative and supra-constitutional.
Is any assassination attempt on Hitler at that point therefore valid? Eh, I'm and end-to-end pro-lifer (don't like abortion, don't like death penalty) so I'd've preferred to see some sort of pseudo-state-vigilante-police action. You know, arrest Hitler on behalf of "Free Germany" or something.
But we're playing with counterfactuals within counterfactuals wrapped in hypotheticals. So it's all Dungeons and Dragons. Furthermore, intentionally or not, I've been misled into a "tRumP iS HitLER" online discussion. So, really, I guess I'm the asshole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. I guess. In the same way that a schizo may 'support' stabbing his roommate because they're trying to steal his precious bodily fluids or put chips in his brain. Makes sense from his individual perspective. Of course, this perspective has consequences meted out by other parties (disconnection, imprisonment, execution).
They should support his murder based on their premises. I have my own premises as well, and some disorganized thoughts on what should be done to them in turn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they have only minimal foresight, they should not.
In situation where half of voters hate freedom and want strong man who will rule with iron fist, the democrats already screwed things as much as they could.
Redacting aspiring leader might be historically justifiable if the leader is truly great man with exceptional and irreplaceable skills. Otherwise, nothing will change, new strong man (there are always more candidates for this job) will rise up and step in the boots of his martyred precedessor.
Trump might not have irreplaceable skills, but is the meme magic replaceable?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Assassination seems sort of anti-democratic too though. Maybe even moreso than peacefully relinquishing power on losing an election even if you think it wasn't fair.
More options
Context Copy link
But if you squint, doesn't it kind of follow the same logic as "the second amendment protects the first amendment"?
In the sense that neither is protected when it would protect an opponent?
In the sense that both are proposing extralegal violence in defense of enlightenment principles.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My attempt at steelmanning the "assassinations are actually good" position: democracy is good, and an assassination attempt is a sign that a democracy is on the brink. Being successful or not does nothing to the health of the democracy: the fact that it occured at all is the symptom of the underlying malady. Given that, if someone is actively harming democracy, then it's better that an assassination attempt on them succeeds than fails.
(I'd disagree basically on every stated assumption in that, but I think it's how the logic goes.)
Assassination seems more like an extreme form of hecklers veto. Someone could have unanimous -1 support and get assassinated.
Riots and mobs are maybe justified under this logic, which tells you how crappy democracy is as a justification of power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think there are a bunch of mockable positions here.
There's the people who actually think Trump is Hitler reincarnated. For one, that's really dumb and worthy of ridicule. Two, it's idiotic to publicly state this since if it turns out you're correct, you get a free trip to a concentration camp.
The people who say Trump is Hitler for their two minutes hate, but then weathervane into pearl clutching when someone almost kills him are huge hypocrites and absolutely should be mocked.
As for cancellation, I don't support or participate in it, I'm a staunch free speech advocate. I think in most cases (especially in cases like the home depot cashier above) nothing you say on a social media platform should cost you your job. That said, the left has been wielding cancellation like a war hammer for the last decade, so it's a lot of fun to watch the leopards eat their faces.
This isn't an answer to my question.
Anti.
Trump being a potential or likely future threat to democracy is wrong but it isn’t schizo. If you undertake a policy of just assassinating everyone that codes as a potential Erdogan or Mugabe then you don’t have a democracy, because the false positive rate is too high. Instead it becomes justifiable to assassinate positive current threats to democracy- eg Hitler right after the reichstag fire, not during coalition negotiations.
Yeah this is where I land as well. Which is why it irks me to see people going "haha they says he's literally Hitler but also saying the assassination attempt was bad, they're clearly full of shit." No, it's that crossing the line of embracing political violence and murder is a serious thing and most people won't do that lightly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is the correct position for somebody who is pro democracy but doesn’t think that people who disagree with him should be allowed to vote?
It’s just an incoherent question along the lines of “can god microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot lift it?”
It is coherent question with coherent answer.
"What is democracy?"
"Democracy is when we win!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh. There are things worth dying for. I don't happen to agree with this particular statement, never mind think it's worth dying to state, but the worldview where this adds up even on a utilitarian level, never mind a deontological or virtue level, is not hard to construct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link