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 -
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?
Of a politician stepping down? How about Menendez?
Here he is saying he definitely will not resign:
"MADISON, N.J. -- Convicted U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez has told CBS New York he's not stepping down, even as some fellow senators have called for his resignation.
Menendez has vowed to appeal his corruption conviction and on Wednesday, despite reports he was caving in to demands to resign, the senator dug in and told reporter Christine Sloan, "I can tell you that I have not resigned nor have I spoken to any so-called 'allies,'" adding, "Seems to me that there is an effort to try to force me into a statement. Anyone who knows me knows that's the worst way to achieve a goal with me.""
Then 5 days later he steps down:
"Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey will resign his seat effective August 20, according to a copy of his resignation letter obtained by CNN. In July, Menendez was convicted of 16 counts — including bribery, extortion, wire fraud, obstruction of justice and acting as a foreign agent — for his role in a yearslong bribery scheme."
What do you think caused this miraculous change of heart in 5 short days? Intense pressure from his party. Specifically the party whips whose job it is to get their party in line.
You mean a guy who was convicted for bribery charges had a hard time not stepping down? That seems a little different…
Why? Trump has been convicted and didn't stand down, because there is no-one in the GOP with enough pull to pressure him into it. Both a conviction and being unable to stand up to your opponent in a debate (to put it mildly) hurt your chances. So the party if able will put pressure on you for the "greater good".
Politicians are generally self-interested and ambitious, if they are not made to they will try to hang on even when damaging the overall chances of their party. Hence why parties have whips and the like. To exert pressure. That is their entire purpose. To whip the party members into line (Not literally nowadays of course) but through pressure, dirt, promises and the like. I am sure Biden and his inner circle were getting inundated with pressure from lots of angles. And that is all entirely normal in any situation where a politician does something that weakens his party.
Trump was convicted on trumped up nonsense charges in NY that don’t stand up to legal scrutiny (the one that did was the one in Florida). But all of those crimes or alleged crimes were Mickey Mouse crimes. Bribery is the sine qua non of crime for a politician.
And being publicly senile is also somewhat bad for a politician presunably you would agree.
But still examples of politicians having a scandal or crime or some crisis, maintaining they won't step down, then stepping down under pressure is common, which is the point.
Liz Truss in the UK is another example, Al Franken as well. Newt Gingrich on the other side.
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
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