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 -
FWIW I don't like Trump, and I have no idea who I will vote for since it will be a contest of which bag of shit smells least.
But I would vote for Kodos before I voted for Kamala.
Lefties hate Trump for Jan 6, which I cannot gin up enough outrage to really care about. It was one riot in a year full of them, notable only for the fact that it was righties instead of lefties, and they vandalized government buildings instead of destroying the lives of randos. Did Trump encourage them? Hard to say if he meant to, or they colluded, or they overinterpreted him, but either way it was a bad look.
But Kamala set up a bail fund for rioters. In the middle of destructive riots. The ones that did more damage than a Cat 2 hurricane and fucked up random business owners to no purpose whatsoever. Riots which ROUTINELY had been going for multi-night stretches in each location before petering out. But the idea of a single arsonist being forced to miss out on the second night of terror just because he'd been caught in the first night was so hateful to her that she organized a bail fund to make sure they didn't have to miss a single moment of terrorizing the people of the nation she was running to be VP of. Lefties think Trump is a traitor, I think Kamala is. Trump maybe encouraged a riot that didn't even do much. Kamala funded a terrorist insurgency.
Lefties hated Trump long before Jan 6. Jan 6 was just an opportunity for them to say "see I told you so".
More options
Context Copy link
It's worse than that. When she was California AG,
her office was responsible for writing the titles and summaries of ballot initiatives. She decided to title one of them - Proposition 47 - the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" with an innocuous summary. What Prop 47 actually did was downgrade a whole host of significant offenses, including forgery, fraud, and theft or receiving of stolen items valued at less than $950, from felonies to misdemeanors.[EDIT: I was corrected by /u/sarker on this below] Her office also refused to seek the death penalty for a man who shot a cop in cold blood, and didn't bother to contact the man's widow at all.She also has a track record, both as AG and as San Francisco DA, of things we would normally associate with hard-ass overzealous prosecutors; failing to disclose significant potentially-exculpatory evidence to opposing counsel in violations of rules requiring her to do so. Her office covered up a lying forensic technician in over 600 drug cases, letting a corrupt fire investigator create an illegal slush-fund and falsify records to pin a major wildfire on private landowners, and fighting to defend several blatantly false convictions.
The combination makes sense to me; I recognize her type from my time working in the guts of the administrative state. She's the worst kind of anarcho-tyrant. Someone who will use every trick in the book (and a few that aren't in it) to keep their budgets full, perquisites in place, authority unquestioned, and metrics good, while studiously avoiding anything that smacks of hard work even at the cost of significant injustice or community harm. Goodhart's law made flesh. "Progressive" when the incentives tell her to be progressive, pro-cop when the incentives line up that way instead. But almost always in the worst, most counterproductive way possible.
You (or whoever told you this) made this up.
Ballotpedia
Ballot title The ballot title for Proposition 47 was as follows:
"Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute."
Ballot summary The ballot summary for this measure was:
“ • Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses.
• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for the following crimes when amount involved is $950 or less: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks.
• Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender.
• Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk.
• Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K–12 schools, and crime victims. "
Quoted text above is taken from the information booklet sent to every voter.
That was never the official name of the proposition, it is simply marketing from the supporters and is not within the AG's remit.
You are correct, she did not title the Proposition; that title is in the Proposition's text. However, the information booklet's text is not necessarily the same as the text on the actual ballot.
I'm not aware of any cases where the name of a proposition is different in the information booklet versus the ballot. Please provide an example.
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