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 legal cause for the cancellation seems to be undeclared campaign funding.
At least that's what I'm getting at this point.
Is there proof that Georgescu knew that money was being spent on social media campaigns on his behalf and didn't chase down the exact amounts to report it properly? Because tbh it just kind of seems like he didn't think he was gonna win, either.
Do campaign finance statutes include provisions for cancelling elections if money is underreported? Here it's generally fines and such, not undoing the election itself.
Is there any evidence the current ruling party knew about the social media campaigning but didn't do anything about it because Georgescu is a partiless nobody and they thought he would just leech some votes off the far-right party?
If I'm reading it right, it doesn't matter if he knew or not. The law in question seems to be https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/73672, in particular Chapter IV (Capitolul IV).
The brief statement mentioned an article from the constitution which says basically "the elections must be held according to the law" and the law (above) says "blah blah blah prohibited". Looks like there are no specific provisions for this particular case, and it's up to the court to figure out what to do now.
My understanding is that the court decided that the election was not held according to the law, and therefore doesn't count as a valid election, and the country needs a valid election to elect a president. With no explicit shortcuts, the country now has to go through the full election procedure. Again, that's just my reading of the situation so far. The full statement from the court should, I guess, state the logic of the decision, maybe. Shrug emote.
Seems to be so, yeah.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link