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've mentioned this before (because I never tire of referencing my history nerd reading), but Robert Caro's description of the Texas senatorial election in 1948 was illuminating.
Short version is that both parties trucked large numbers of illegals across the border to vote. This was known. Even relatively honest politicians knew that that's how things worked in Texas and if they didn't get involved directly and kept it arms-length enough to have plausible deniability, they still knew.
Presumably Texas was not the only state in which this happened (it's just the state Caro was interested in because he was researching Lyndon Johnson).
Could such a thing happen today? It would be more difficult, what with more surveillance, more information systems, more people with phones, more data analysis, etc. I doubt you could have party officials literally trucking hundreds of illegals across the border and herding them through polls without someone noticing. But would it be impossible for some operatives to plan and execute an operation large enough to influence a tight election? With enough plausible deniability that if caught, they could be disavowed by whoever they were benefiting? No, I don't think it's impossible. There are still a lot of remote counties without a lot of monitoring.
I am not saying this is actually happening (and I doubt it is, at least on a large scale), but I wouldn't dismiss concerns about illegal voting, even if they are frequently exaggerated for political purposes. The fact that it could be done means we should take serious precautions against it.
The point I am making is not about which forms of voter fraud could be done - we all agree that it is easy for a non-citizen to register and vote in most states. The argument I was making is that non-citizen voting (unlike certain other forms of voter fraud, like filling in your wife's postal vote) is easy to catch if anyone wants to catch it. For example, the fraud in Texas in 1948 was caught, but the authorities declined to prosecute because they were fine with that kind of thing. Attitudes to democracy in America were different then - Illinois practiced blatant ballot-rigging (actual ballot-rigging, in that the published vote counts did not match the votes cast) - again on a bipartisan basis and as an open secret - into the 1960's.
The claim I am making is that: Premise 1) If large numbers of non-citizens were voting, this would be easy to detect. Premise 2) In the current year, there are numerous red state officials with the means, opportunity and motive to investigate non-citizen voting. Some actually have done. Premise 3) We don't detect large numbers of non-citizens voting, even when red state officials go looking for it. Conclusion: There are not, in fact, large numbers of non-citizens voting in American elections.
Bussing illegals into Texas in 1948 is a case where 2 and 3 didn't apply - nobody bothered to investigate, and the perps were caught (but not punished) anyway. In the current year, that isn't happening, and if it was the perps would be punished.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link