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 -
Ooof two paragraphs in and I remember exactly why I stopped reading Meskhout's blog. All heat, no light.
So Trump says the government can't work with some firms and their security clearances are revoked. And...So what? Oh one of the firms sued and one caved. Ok...Some lawyers are only interested in money? Some guys who don't look cool also happen to be lawyers who don't roll over for Trump?
If this is supposed to tell me something bigger about how the government interfaces with civilian law firms I missed it. Is the problem that now the people in the government who hired the law firms to prosecute J6 (and Trump too?) have to work with what they got? That other law firms won't want to work with the USG because they might someday get hamstrung by not having security clearances? That uh....conservative lawyers, er...um, are going to be more in demand?
I honestly can't figure out what the claim is in the article, but I'm also too hung up on the shite writing to really try and dissect it. ELI5 please.
What I still wonder is why the heck that law firm had a security clearance in the first place. I mean, I can see why people in DOD and CIA have security clearances, ditto Boeing and Lockheed-Martin and whatever random contractor gets the contract for making bits of the radar for the F-35 etc., but why does some random law firm need a security clearance?
To work on cases involving classified projects.
Also to work on cases where the government claims to be relying on classified evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link