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 -
Yes, of course. Caesar's enemies don't need to placate all of his ambition. They need a bit less obstructionism, unyielding perspective, bitter zero sum politics, and a few clicks down on the compulsion to destroy their political rivals. Employ a bit more savvy, a bit more compromise, and outcomes other than the destruction of the Republic become more likely. Hopefully those outcomes even become appealing or preferable. I would not go back in time to tell Cato that if he imposes a few more limitations -- just one more extra long filibuster -- on his bitter enemy that everything would work out. The obstructionism, the politics, the factionalism is how you find out, woops, I guess power can be different than what it appears to be.
I didn't argue that the executive shouldn't have any limitations to immunity. Just that the Trump v. US ruling landed in about the correct area. The President is not practically any more or less "immune" to murdering his political enemies than he was 10 years ago. I have only read excerpts of the opinions and dissents, by the way.
It sounds like you have a lot more trust in the entities that enforce "rules and boundaries" than I do. I believe if the President had no legal immunities today they would be mired in nothing but lawsuits. I'd wager we agree there, then at some point from no limitations on prosecution to has chip in his brain that puts him to sleep when he thinks about a crime we diverge. Allowing the President to do stuff without having obstructionism and factionalism destroy the Republic is good. The qualm about the bribes hypothetical that ACB (I think) brought up as and the related evidentiary issue is a sticking point. I don't mind the President being immune to extra presidential bribes if it means another 100 years of of peace. This ruling gives the nation more time to iron out the details in the future.
We have cases of "no immunity" to full immunity, we have a mechanism to impeach, and we have a mechanism to remove a president every 4 years. It's fine, it's enough. Asking for much more from the same people, those that can get lost in the of their own perception of power, carries a risk. SCOTUS majority probably saw that people imposing rules and boundaries couldn't stop themselves or, if they didn't think so now, they saw a future where they couldn't.
A reliable, peaceful transfer of power is worth a hundred consecutive Trump presidencies.
That's an interesting perspective! I did ask mostly because I was curious and I appreciate your thoughts.
On reflection, I guess to me the bribe issue seems a little too close to plausibility for me, especially when you cross it with the pardon power. While typically I trust presidents not to abuse the pardon power too badly, or if they do it's generally not a big deal, its specific interaction with the recent ruling seems a bit more dangerous than either aspect in isolation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link