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 -
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