site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   2619 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 8, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What would count as “weaponizing the DOJ” that the Democrats haven’t already normalized? What “unacceptable directives” wouldn’t be illegal, yet would be beyond the pale?

New York Times columnist David Brooks said the quiet part out loud recently while on left-of-center “PBS Newshour”: “if you look at democracies in decline, then it is a pattern that people in office use their power to indict and criminalize and throw in jail the people who were in office before them of the opposing party. And so we are a nation, democracy in decline.” - The Hill

What “unacceptable directives” wouldn’t be illegal, yet would be beyond the pale?

Well, to quote Cheney herself:

Donald Trump knows his claims about the select committee are ridiculous and false, as has been detailed extensively, including by Chairman Thompson. There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting — a Justice Department investigation of the work of a congressional committee — and any lawyer who attempts to pursue that course would quickly find themselves engaged in sanctionable conduct.

(Emphasis added)

What would count as “weaponizing the DOJ” that the Democrats haven’t already normalized?

Well, remember, just because the Democrats have done it, doesn't mean it's been "normalized" when Republicans do it. "Кто, кого?" and all that.

Cheney is obviously lying, and the reason for her lying is also obvious - she is one of the persons who actively engaged in such conduct. Her bloviations however do not carry much weight. Would Democrats want to prosecute their political enemies? Of course they would, they are already doing it. Would they have any success to make bar associations sacrifice their reputations and position as an institution of the society on the altar of short-term political gain? I somehow doubt so, though they managed to make many people and categories of people do just that, so it's not impossible.

Would they have any success to make bar associations sacrifice their reputations and position as an institution of the society on the altar of short-term political gain?

I know I've seen various things in passing the last couple of years about bar associations and law schools pushing various DEI initiatives.

Around 2020-2021, it looked like DEI is the way to win (or, at least, not get a mob setting your building on fire). So, a lot of people were scared into going with the flow. As the flow turns now, we may discover much less people are willing to stick their necks out to fight for DEI when it may mean not only being praised and promoted.

As the flow turns now

Except from what I can see, it isn't turning. The idea that "the woke is being put away" or that we're seeing "peak woke" is utter nonsense, pure wishful thinking. DEI is going to keep on being "the way to win" for the entire 21st century at least.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats