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 -
Sure, but what do you want me to do about it? Change my career path, go into a law, get a job in politics, and rise through the ranks so I can become a star prosecutor who goes after Republicans and Democrats alike?
I’d just like you to not act as though your personal desire for fairness in lawfare means anything to those of us on the right. No lawfare is much preferred over one-sided lawfare.
In other words, I cannot argue in favor of a thing unless I personally have the means to implement it? Sorry, that's not a demand I'm going to comply with.
"No lawfare" is just corruption, because every public figure is partisan. Was Bob Menendez (D-NJ) a victim of lawfare when he was convicted of 16 counts of bribery? He has a D next to his name! George Santos? Michael Flynn? "Lawfare" absent any hard evidence of the motives of the prosecutors is little more than the idea that anyone you like can't be accused of a crime.
I'd also argue the right does know what lawfare is. What do you think all those people chanting "Lock her up!" were calling for?
You’re right. It is corruption. One-sided lawfare is also corruption, and of a more dangerous kind.
Bob Menendez will be replaced by another guy with a D next to his name so absolutely nothing was lost by the democrats. The occasional no-stakes sacrifice isn’t fooling anyone, especially when it took two decades for consequences.
They wanted lawfare. Your rules applied fairly and all that.
Oh come now. You ignore the point and pivot to calling it meaningless. The "lawfare" argument is that Menendez should never face consequences, because if Republicans bring charges it's lawfare and if Democrats do it it's a stunt I guess? Do we need to summon a being of true neutrality and law to bring prosecution or not?
They were doing this before Trump was ever even in office. And again, I don't have near as much a problem with it as you seem to. The whole "Oops I deleted it!" was at a bare minimum shady as fuck.
Exactly! Because you know your side will never actually face consequences!
Surely you can see there is an enormous qualitative difference between democrats ejecting an unpopular democrat in a safe-D state and democrats digging through the couch cushions and charging the opposing presidential candidate with whatever novel legal theories they can find?
I just posted examples of it happening and you pivot to finding a reason to say it doesn't count. Hell, they even pushed out Al Franken, who was at the time fairly popular, over mere accusations of inappropriate behavior.
Yes, there aren't a lot of examples because most politicians are at least smart enough to be corrupt in legal ways (see Pelosi). I don't think prosecuting someone for taking classified documents home, showing them to others, and hiding them from officials when they try to find them is novel. If anyone besides Trump did it, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Prosecuting someone for trying to replace election officials with loyalists who will call the election for you or calling state officials to pull votes for you out of thin air has never happened in America because no one has tried it, but it's the same sort of thing that regularly happens in third world countries. Hell it's happening in Venezuela right now. For all the people claiming the election is insecure, prosecuting that sort of behavior would also be a slam dunk against anyone but Trump.
And again, under your proposed rules, how could it possibly ever happen?
Your examples do absolutely nothing to disprove a one-sided lawfare hypothesis so why should I grant you that point?
This is an extremely motivated reading of that phone call, especially with more recent revelations on the election in Georgia. Gotta be honest, it’s making me doubt your commitment to even-handed lawfare.
Prosecuting your political opponents? You’re right! The political valence is even the same!
ETA: I’ll grant you Al Franken in the sense that the democrats definitely did not have to get rid of him. My opinion is that they only did because it was peak #MeToo and their hand was forced by the appearance of hypocrisy and their extreme left faction. (It doesn’t hurt that MN is relatively safely blue.) Note that in the years since many people involved in his resignation have publicly come to regret it. Regardless, it definitionally wasn’t lawfare since he faced no charges.
The only evidence of your hypothesis to begin with is motivated reasoning that people don't like Trump, ergo they don't actually believe Trump committed crimes. I cannot prove what is in people's heads and neither can you, therefore you can insist forever. I can point out all the evidence forever, even things I believe are solid evidence. All I get in return is some other situation that's vaguely similar against a Democrat but didn't result in the outcome you say you don't want to begin with (but act like you do in fact want it), and how by my own rules I should support said hypothetical outcome. I say I'm absolutely fine with that and you effectively call me a liar, which again you can insist forever.
You then challenge me to find a counterexample, and when I do you simply add another condition to it until I can't. Now I have a find a Democrat convicted by Democrats and said conviction must have cost Democrats a seat. Of course you know these conditions are rare to begin with. I can either spend an hour finding some example from the 1800's, which you will say is too old to count, or if I manage to find a recent example I'll get told something like how it didn't count because Democrats still had a majority or some such. I have to present hard evidence and all you have to do is find a way to spin it that of course it was all a ploy by the Democrats. Of course nothing similar will ever be expected from Republicans.
So now you're the one complaining about motivated reasoning? Yes, I'm sure Trump only cares about election security. That's why he specifically hones in on a district that could be make-or-break in making him the winner. And spends an hour rambling with no specific allegations. And is clear that the outcome he wants is not to find fraudulent or miscounted votes, but to continue to do so until enough votes are found to declare him the winner. He insists that that this is possible with no information about how those votes were falsified, he spends pretty much the entire time talking in a "just find a way" tone.
Or trying to simply ignore election results and declare yourself the winner. One of the two.
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
It's better than two-sided lawfare too -- there's a reason why "don't go after past presidents for petty bullshit" has been the norm since forever; it's a good norm!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link