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 -
In some countries, they refer to this as a "coup".
I generally agree with the rest of your post, but it isn't Kamala's race to lose. Right now, this is a toss up, which means it's about the next "thing" that turns into the "current thing" that each candidate has to respond to. Remember, Harris got a two free news cycle passes in a row - when Biden dropped out followed immediately by the DNC. In the next few weeks some-"thing" will happen. Then, the race actually starts.
No, it isn't.
First, a party can nominate whoever it wants; it doesn't have to go through a "democratic" primary process, and the Democrats only did that in the most disingenuous way possible for this election.
Second, it's absurd for people on the right to try to claim that, both, A. Biden is mentally unfit; and B. It's a "coup" to replace him. If A, then B must happen in the name of civic responsibility.
I'll grant that a lot of Democratic Party shenanigans stink to high heaven, and this whole election process makes them look like the most cynical operators. But it's rich for people, most of whom don't even think Biden was legitimately elected in the first place, to try to claim that switching out nominees in this case is somehow deeply illegitmate.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump followed with the RFK Jr. endorsement followed by the Gabbard endorsement. The latter didn't even make a splash; it barely got an offhand mention here. If you have a "thing" but the media downplays it, it's not a "thing".
That's a very fair counterpoint. I hadn't thought of that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Coup has two meanings in a way which makes this confusing. The term derives from the French "couper" meaning "to cut" in common French but closer to "to strike" in fencing terminology, which is where the relevant English idioms get the word from, including coup d'etat, coup de theatre, coup de grace etc.
So we have "coup" meaning an achievement analogous to a well-executed hit in fencing - the dictionary describes it as "successfully achieving something difficult" but I think it is only idiomatic if the achievement is an apparently sudden and surprising victory in an adversarial setting analogous to a duel. In this case Pelosi and other Democratic elites removing Biden cleanly is clearly a coup.
We also have "coup" used as a shorthand for "coup d'etat" - specifically the idea of a sudden violent replacement of a government (although again "coup" is only idiomatically correct if the success is so spectacular that only minimal violence is actually needed - otherwise it is a civil war or a revolution). The replacement of Biden by Harris is clearly not a coup d'etat - the rules as written were followed and there was no threat or use of violence.
More options
Context Copy link
To me "coup" implies coercion. And, while I don't know what happened behind closed doors to get Biden to step down, so far at least I have not seen any evidence that there was coercion.
Wait you think Biden did it willingly? It is pretty clear they told him step down or we will 25th amendment you. Legal? Yeah. Coercive? Yeah.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know, the fact that it happened on twitter without any visible involvement of the man himself (and famously even the wrong signature) does it for me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When a political party replaces one candidate with another candidate (who is in fact the deputy of the current candidate) that can hardly be called a coup. Coups involve replacing the government, Kamala's government position (VP) hasn't changed, she's just now the person standing to be the next president instead of Biden.
Candidate choice is an internal party matter for the Democrats (as it is for any political party). There is nothing even remotely coup-like about this.
This is absurd. Candidate choice is not an internal party matter. We have these state run things called primaries that have determined nominations for a long time in this country. I know it’s convenient to say “internal matter” but most internal matters don’t require the local Secretary of State to get involved.
But it is still true. You are right to point out state involvement. But most states have no law about whether delegates are bound legally and those that do almost invariably have an exemption for the candidate withdrawing. Plus many other exemptions for being unbound after rounds of voting or if their chosen candidate is doing too badly.
But regardless of all that the Supreme Court held that state election law cannot override a parties internal processes in any case. It is literally legally an internal matter.
Regardless of the primaries, the delegates were legally free to pick Kamala. All the DNC delegates are bound to do is in good conscience represent their voters. If they in good conscience think their voters would no longer want Biden they can and indeed should switch even if he didn't step down. Note this rule was changed in 1980 when they were trying to replace Carter as acandidate with a Kennedy, and only their own internal rules prevented them from doing so. So this is something that has been planned for. The only thing they have to do is manage the political fallout if any.
The truth is the primaries are theatre legally. The only thing that binds the parties are their internal rules. Hence an internal matter.
There are principles of norms and there are legal realities. The fact is people have understood for a long time that primaries are how we pick candidates. The fact is those processes are run by states.
And now when the Dems were going to lose they claim “well it is just an internal matter” ignoring the norm that even involved the state!
Except they did the same back in 1980 but were stopped only by their internal rules. Which they then changed, so they could do it if they wanted. The fact they haven't needed to, doesn't change the fact they were prepared for it, over 40 years ago.
People can understand all sorts of things, it doesn't mean those things are true. As long as the DNC is competent at convincing their voters then we have established there is no actual other impediment. In fact the Supreme Court relied on the ultimate norm. The Constitution. The first amendment is what allows the parties this broad latitude.
Is your position that norms should override Constitutional rights? Because that seems somewhat problematic for other rights you probably support. Its certainly been the norm in blue states to make owning guns difficult. Does that trump 2A rights? If New York is forced to allow open carry will you curse this overriding of norms?
At the end of the day, what happened was legal. Indeed it would have been legal even without Biden stepping down. With him stepping down it is both legal and I would argue within the norms most people consider. My delegate will choose someone other than my candidate if they step down or die is one of the norms of primaries after all.
If enough people dislike how it was done, they can punish Democrats at the ballot box.
Funny enough I don’t think the 2A protects guns if I’m relatively pro guns.
And my broader point is that a lot of what makes a society work and a constitutional order work is respecting for norms. Pushing things to the legal breaking point is not a good thing. This is pushing a norm to a breaking point.
As for Biden “stepping down” he was forced out. Again norm breaking.
Politicians being pushed to step down IS the norm. It happens every other Tuesday. I honestly do not think you understand how much influence national political parties have over their candidates and how often they use it. Which is a lot. Biden will have been pressured for his stances on the Ukraine and Israel, and taxes and many other things. Sometimes he will have spent his political capital to win, sometimes he will have lost. That is the reality of organized political parties.
Here he did not have the political capital to win, and this is entirely normal in political parties. The President is not some all-powerful figure. Unless you are saying they put a gun to his head, then it is normal for parties to pressure their politicians, to an extent that is what they are for. To push their politicians into doing what the party thinks is best. Sometimes they will have the clout to do it, and sometimes the politicians have the clout to push back.
But there is no norm against a party pushing a candidate to stand down. In fact if they did not try to get a candidate they think will do badly to change or step down they would be lax in their duty. Whether that is a damaging affair, being outed as gay, or whatever, I guarantee you that there are politicians all over the world right now, who are about to step down because they are under pressure from their party. They will give some speech about needing to spend more time with their family and how they thank the people for giving them the chance to serve etc. etc.
Why do you think a Presidential candidate should be or is immune to this?
Can you show an example? One prior example?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is the inconsistency. As you point out, Blue Tribe norms almost always trump constitutional rights. New York's laws, as a practical matter, actually do override the Second Amendment. The reverse almost never happens.
No, but then again, this will not happen. I will happily put up money on this.
Sure, probably not. But if both sides are inconsistent, then the argument is moot.
I'm not arguing against hypocrisy, I'm arguing against the fairness of the inconsistent application of this principal in reality.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link