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 -
Come off it. You can argue that invoking war powers in peacetime is technically legal, but it is definitely unprecedented.
Impounding spending, while not unprecedented, is a clear breach of norms about separation of powers (and the law, assuming that the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional).
Obfuscating the org chart of a powerful office within the EOP, for example by issuing a press release saying that Elon Musk is head of DOGE and then saying in a court filing that it is actually Amy Gleason, is a breach of norms about basic honesty (and possibly also perjury).
On the other hand, district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions against executive policies that appear to be facially illegal is now, unfortunately, entirely normal.
Are you familiar with the 2001 AUMF? There are 24 years of precedence, including the use of this authorisation to justify the NSA's warrantless surveillance.
The AUMF was a declaration of war in all but name, and led to an actual shooting war in Afghanistan. I would prefer that the Congress use the words "Declaration of War" when it exercises its article I power to declare war, because I am a spergy believer in rectification of names, but all three branches of government treated the AUMF as a declaration of war.
The 2001 AUMF is actually still in effect and gives the President total authority over who qualifies as a target. If you want to claim that there's something unprecedented about the use of wartime powers in supposed peace you're just flat out wrong - Trump wasn't involved in politics at all when the 2001 AUMF was put in place, and previous governments have used it to justify the warrantless surveillance of the entire American population. There are over two decades of precedents for this kind of behavior! I actually agree with you that this is bad, but you just look uninformed if you think that this is some brand new abuse of power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link