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 -
You are assuming the president didn’t sign off on this. Trump and Elon said they talk daily. If Trump told Elon he should do this then does that change your mind?
Yes and no. First, "signed off on it" means literally puts his name on it. If Elon wants to send out emails that are supposed to have the weight of presidential authority, he needs to show that they actually have presidential authority. Are the heads of every government agency just supposed to assume that anything Elon says is effectively a presidential order? Lots of people talk to the president daily, but that doesn't mean all the president's friends can order federal agencies around.
If Trump issues an EO tomorrow saying "Yes, in fact, everything Elon Musk says is a presidential directive" (or at least, "All federal employees must respond to the OPM email or be fired") then we're back to testing your Unitary Executive Theory. But up to this point, agencies telling their employees not to respond to the OPM emails while they handle it are not, as several people here have suggested, committing treason or insubordination. They are being perfectly sensible in reacting to a ridiculous and probably illegal demand.
Why does it need to be an EO? If Trump called up Kash tomorrow would that change your mind?
Or what about DoT where Duffy supported it?
Is it your position that the President can make law by vague implication? That Musk has the full authority of the Presidency vested within him and his department when he does things like this because Trump likes him? I mean Trump appointed Patel too. How do we know he is not also acting with the authority of the President when he told his staff to ignore the email?
Not law but yes the president can tell Elon do X and therefore Elon can do X. That is, when the president acts it need not be via a bureaucratic action to have constitutional heft.
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