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 -
We could also imagine Trump wearing just a tutu, which would also be unseemly. Is there any particular reason to substantiate imagination?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_von_H%C3%BClsen-Haeseler
More options
Context Copy link
Because the history of government shows that when it has the powers to disappear people, it tends to use those powers against those most annoying rather than those it was intended to disappear.
There are literally thousands of years of human governance to pick from, but I will confess being curious which four under which government you think are most relevant for judging Donald Trump's inclination to disappearing people.
To be clear, I don’t think Trump is particularly likely to start disappearing journalists to an el Salvadoran gulag, and wouldn’t particularly mind it if that was where it ended. But establishing this as a power of the president will likely end with democrats doing it to people I do care about.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe general distrust of government and (healthy?) paranoia that once a government has some capability, it will eventually find a way to use it in evil ways. I'm sure all five principled libertarians that exist in the world have been doing that kind of thing long before Trump, so it's not like it's unprecedented.
More options
Context Copy link
Is your argument that dispensing with due process is fine because Trump has only rendered bad people to an El Salvadoran prison AFAWK?
My position is that you are still crying wolf, and replacing 'racist' with 'fascist.'
Any bayesian update?
https://abc7.com/post/president-trump-suggests-tesla-vandals-should-face-20-years-jail-sent-el-salvador/16064219/
Stronger thanks to your expectation that that a story in which Trump is not dispensing of due process should provide a bayesian update that Trump is dispensing of due process.
Particularly given the form of delivery is the common TDS failure mode on the taking Trump seriously versus literally divide, which has been an archetypical form of crying wolf about Trump intents for a decade.
Wait what. If you don't think due process was already dispensed with in the first batch of people who were deported directly to a foreign prison without judicial review I'm not sure what continuing to exchange information here will accomplish.
Your confusion is probably because you are strawmanning an argument I did not make, while conflating different lines of argument, while trying to cite an article as evidence I should reconsider my position even though the article consists of insinuating a charge that the text acknowledges has not happened.
Which is to say, it cries wolf.
I am sure if you continue to push more information of Donald Trump not deporting american citizens without due process you will continue to accomplish more cries of wolf.
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
Well, According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio El Salvadore President Bukele has offered to hold American Citizens. From a BBC article quoting Trump on the deal:
Which would seem to indicate Trump's willingness is conditional on legality, not merely annoyance. And legal deportations are typically not considered just disappearing people.
Given the many unlawful actions the Trump admin has already taken I see no reason to treat his legality concerns as anything more than a fig leaf.
There are many types of illegal things, of which I am fairly sure you would concede are neither equivalent to or predictive of other illegal things. I am also fairly sure you would even concede that Biden did some illegal things as well. I am not convinced you would take them as evidence of specific accusations of willingness to disappear political annoyances... and Biden actually was part of (at least) two administrations that targeted political opponents.
Ok, but in this specific case the US government defied a court order to deport people. It is also the government's stated position in that lawsuit that their authority to declare someone a deportable alien enemy under the AEA is unreviewable by a court. "We are allowed to deport anyone we declare a deportable alien under the AEA and no one is allowed to say otherwise" is a recipe for government deportation of American citizens without any due process. They've even got a country lined up to deport them to!
No the government complied with the order. The judge wrote an order different than what he wanted.
More options
Context Copy link
And yet, your own quote- that you provided to show intent- also demonstrated both an acknowledgement and a non-intent to merely deport regardless of legality, let alone american citizens who are political dissidents.
If you want to insist that half of your own provided evidence of intent is a lie, but that we should use the other half as sincere unvarnished truth in isolation, feel free to go ahead. But the original charge that you responded to the response of was-
Notice how the accusation of what is imagined / forewarned / supposed to be at stake, and why, is moving just a little here? How the bailey was 'disappearing political annoyances,' and how we are shifting to 'wrongly depart American citizens?'
And how you are conflating different cases, with different legal contexts, and thus different due process requirements, in the process?
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