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 -
The glaring hole in the motivated reasoning is that if you believe that the Republicans are going to do a bunch of stuff that's illegal/procedurally impossible the second they're voted into power, then why would you believe that they would wait until they're voted in to do it? If they were going to illegally do it in November after winning the election, they'd just illegally do it now.
Stuff like throwing out the real election and installing their candidate anyway?
Someone who believes Jan. 6 was a failed coup doesn't think the Trump gang has been waiting.
That suffers from a similar failure of reasoning. To think that was a coup attempt requires a similar sort of video game logic to thinking that Trump (or Kamala for that matter) becoming president will somehow result in the constitution being abolished or massively amended. It's thinking that there's a magic chair that if you can just touch then the objective marker says "completed" and it plays the "overthrowing the government" cutscene. If the necessary pieces were in place for that to happen (meaning, the vast majority of the federal apparatus was already on board), then touching the magic chair would be unnecessary.
Failure of reasoning or not, it’s taken as desire to do the illegal/procedurally impossible. Holding Congress hostage is absolutely the kind of thing that leads to fantasy oppression.
For what it’s worth, I’m with @AshLael. The chair does matter because all the chairs matter. Every victory, legal or not, is evidence that the victor has more power. The will of the people, the Mandate of Heaven, the barrel of a gun, the right side of history—whatever says “these guys are winners.” You don’t get the necessary pieces in place without some of those victories.
More options
Context Copy link
No, the magic chair does matter. It creates a coordination point.
If you've got an army with the numbers to go and storm the opposing trench you still need a way to get them to all charge at once. If one goes on his own he gets shot to bits. Seizing control of the leadership can potentially give you that - you still need soldiers willing to obey your orders, but you can gain the authority needed to make them believe that everyone else is going to obey them too.
There's many examples of dictators who took power by exploiting legitimate processes before running roughshod over the law once in power - including the archetypal evil dictator Hitler himself. If Hitler loses the 1932/1933 elections - even with no reduction in real support, say because Germany had had a different electoral system - he doesn't pass the Enabling Act and he never becomes Fuhrer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At the same time, the failure seems to illustrate that the Republican congressmen don't just always go along with everything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is that a hole? It's obviously easier to change a country illegitimately as the government than as the opposition. You have your hands on the levers of state.
Even with a Government trifecta the ruling party is most often gridlocking itself. Case in point: The Republicans failing in revoking Obama Care (after beating that drum endlessly) or the Biden Administration needing to compromise with Senator Manchin.
And for amending the constitution a 2/3 majority in both houses is needed. That is only possible for bipartisan issues which have a large consensus in population.
Well, sort of. 2/3 of state legislatures can also call a convention which can propose amendments (which still need to be ratified by 3/4 of states to be accepted).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link