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 -
Fuck you.
The due process needed here was 90 seconds in front of a judge to say "I have a withholding order against being removed to El Salvador." The same 90 seconds I need to be able to say "I'm a fucking citizen, please stop these thugs."
Garcia didn't get his, and you or I may not get ours (respectively, depending on who wins '28).
You have been lied to. Garcia did, in fact, get the opportunity to prove he was allowed to be here twice.
More options
Context Copy link
You may not have been here long, but I'm sure you know better than that.
One day ban.
What about the lazy "everyone who disagrees with me is lying" swipe he was responding to?
This mod is deliberately crafting an echochamber.
That's what I believe, and this mod has no problem with people baselessly asserting their insulting beliefs.
Your belief is ignorant and incorrect.
Do not tell people "Fuck you" because you are offended.
You're a liar.
Take a week off.
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
Anwar Alaki’s innocent kid didn’t get 90 seconds to say shit. Instead he and his fellow cafe members were droned to death because he “should’ve picked a better father.” Yet Garcia who already had multiple court cases establishing that he was in fact removable is taking up orders of magnitude more air time. I wonder why that is?
As I recall the Anwar Alaki case actually got quite a lot of airtime, at least in the circles I inhabit.
To be clear I was talking about his kid. And it was nothing like with Garcia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Two reasons:
You may think that killing someone is the worst thing someone can do to them, but as a litigator, I can assure you that is not the case. Any case with a live victim who can testify and enjoy the proceeds of the suit directly will collect more than a wrongful death action where the injury is determined by extrinsic evidence and the proceeds go to the family. Garcia is currently in jail and the administration (presumably) has the power to get him out, and there is action in the court system almost daily. It has implications for the administration's policies going forward. Alaki wasn't in the news until several years after his death, and while the surrounding circumstances certainly had implications for policy, they weren't as salient.
Criticism of the Obama administration came mostly from Democrats, and internecine wars aren't going to make the news as much as wars that have cross-party intrigue. The media outlet furthest to the right condemning the attack was the New York Times editorial board. Fox News, on the other hand, was going so far in the other direction that even the administration was telling them to stop. If the country is roughly split half and half R/D, and only half the Ds are making a controversy about something, it's not going to catch on, especially if see No. 1.
I don't know how old you are or the social circles you run in, but among left-of-center people at the time there was definitely a fatigue about Obama setting in. The whole Clinton–Kerry foreign policy machine seemed like a continuation of the failed Bush policies, or for that matter the 20th Century foreign spook shit writ large. And then on the other side, you had Republicans who said he wasn't being aggressive enough. I'm beginning to suspect that the whole turn toward what would become wokeness in late 2014 was largely an attempt to reconnect with a leftist base who had largely become frustrated with his schtick.
I don’t think anything you write there is the true reason. First, wrongful death suits are pretty much orthogonal to how the public thinks about these things (ie most people would be more concerned about the government having the ability to summarily execute them as opposed to jailing them). Second, the killing of Alwaki wasn’t years old; it was prominent. If memory serves Rand Paul filibustered over it.
No, I think the true reason is that progressives and their media allies don’t really care about due process; it is used as a weapon. They don’t like Trump deporting illegals so they brought up this case where there is a silly argument over due process (nobody disputes the core underlying fact that he ought not be in the US) and are trying to use it to paint with a wide brush.
So yeah I dont think progressives in toto are being honest here though that doesn’t mean the person I’m responding to is being dishonest.
We can quibble about the timeline, but, Rand Paul (whose speech was in 2013) aside, Progressives were, by and large, the only people arguing for Awlaki's civil liberties. Again, it would help if I knew how old you were at the time, what media you were consuming, and what kind of company you kept, but as someone in his late 20s who listened to either NPR or Democracy Now! on his way to work but would occasionally switch over to right wing talk for a change of pace and whose friends were (mostly) Democrats, NPR and Democracy Now! were regularly running segments talking about how much of a travesty Alwaki's death was. Right wing talk radio, in a rare move, defended Obama's actions, while at the same time criticizing him for not being aggressive enough. They thought the standards the administration used to determine the guys was sufficiently dangerous to merit extrajudicial execution were too high.
I was in college at the time. Regardless, I think practically it was a relatively small story.
It was in the news briefly when it happened, and there wasn't a lot of ongoing action to keep it in the news for an extended period. But a year or two after it happened it turned into a cause celebre among libertarians and progressives about the excesses in the war on terror that the Obama administration wasn't backing down from, and it was discussed more frequently on magazine shows, in op-eds, and on so-called alternative media. And it wasn't so much an onslaught as it was that it would come up every couple weeks (Oh, Amy Goodman is having Glenn Greenwald on again, etc.). If this guy had died I suspect we'd see something similar here, but since there's ongoing action in the story, it's going to be in the news more.
I think you are mistaken—if this guy died there’d be attempted riots. This is getting noise because progs need immigrants in their voting bloc.
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
I still remember people calling Glenn Greenwald a closet rightwinger for pointing this sort of stuff out, and if "fatigue" is an appropriate response to a citizen being sentenced to death without a trial (and the execution resulting in the death of his underage son that wasn't even given a process-free death sentence), than I think shrugging and moving along should be a valid reaction to sending a non-citizen back to his country, even if it violated process and resulted in him being thrown into a prison.
I’m pretty sure the kid was assassinated in a separate drone strike in a cafe.
Damn, I always thought he just got hit by the same bomb as his dad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, I did a bad job of explaining what I meant there. I wasn't using fatigue as a justification for lack of interest. What I meant was that this execution, combined with a bunch of other shit Obama did on the foreign policy front, let to a fatigue with the administration among more progressive voters, particularly younger ones. Obama was elected largely on the promise that he'd back away from the aggressive war on terror policies of the Bush administration. In the '08 GOP primaries you had people like McCain and Fred Thompson who were doubling down on this position. Then Obama comes in and while he was eventually able to get out of Iraq, he doubled down on Afghanistan without making any progress, invaded Libya, wasn't able to close Gitmo, drew lines in the sand in Syria, oversaw an NSA domestic spyiung program, and was now droning US citizens. He was able to make up some of this ground by moving to the left on social issues later in his second term; this ended up being good for him personally, but it wasn't enough to save Hillary Clinton, whom millennials didn't like to begin with and was largely seen as the architect of some of these adventures. The fatigue that I'm referring to is the fatigue with the entire Democratic establishment that led to Bernie Sanders almost giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in 2016, a fatigue that was largely the result of the Obama administration's more conservative views on civil liberties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If that's supposed to sound scary, you should probably stop your side from using "due process" as a weapon to begin with.
Due process is never a weapon.
The denial of it is the weapon.
I do not want my side to read from the book your side is cracking open.
Neither of us can do anything to stop these things. I just hope for you to see THAT IT IS BAD.
I completely disagree with this. Knowingly dragging an innocent person through the court system in an attempt to intimidate or punish him for his lawfully taken actions is a weapon, and has already been used. Cool! I get my "day in court", several in fact! I get to spend from tens up to hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the feds, and if my lawyers slip up, I'm getting locked up. Yay "due process"!
It's the due process that gives you your several days in court, however taxing they may be, rather than just, say, being disappeared to a banana republic's prison system.
Sure. I'm not saying all systems with no due process are better than systems with due process, or that they're better on average, or anything like that. I'm saying fixating on the idea leaves you open to Goodhart’s Law, a failure mode that seems to be more and more frequent in western liberal democracies. If you want an extreme example, the Soviet Union had due process as well.
Indeed, the Soviet Union had so much due process that a friend of a friend once fled an ambulance on a broken leg because it was well known that the due process for discharging patients from hospital was so onerous many doctors never bothered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Say there is a powerful government official who wants to do these things to you.
Would you rather live in Earth 1 where there is due process, or Earth 2 where there isn't?
It's not "due process " which is costing you hundreds of thousands. It's the bad government official, and due process is protecting you from them, even if it sucks.
It hurting to be shot while wearing a bullet proof vest doesn't make the vest a weapon of the enemy.
It depends on many factors, and there might indeed be cases where I'd opt for Earth 2.
This assumes the government official would do something more egregious to me given the choice, and I see no reason to grant that. If you start sweeping people off the street and sending them to gulags, that's the kind of action that is plainly visible to my fellow citizens, and it comes at a cost to the person who ordered it. Maybe they're as powerful as Stalin and they can afford such ruthlessness, but if we're talking about something roughly analogous to modern American, if nothing else he'll have to be careful about what will happen to him, if his party loses the elections. This is where due process helps people like that. You can ruin someone's life without exposing yourself to threat of retaliation.
Keep in mind, if you want to say that, all things considered, you'd prefer to live in a country with due process than without - that's fair enough, it's a completely respectable position. All I'm saying is that your original position of "due process is never a weapon" is clearly false, and that it's been abused to the point that your original implied threat isn't necessarily so scary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You'd rather get locked up instantly? UrgentSloth was commenting on the dichotomy between "due process" and "locked up without", not between "due process" and "unmolested".
Depends for how long. Also, the obvious injustice of it might paradoxically help me retain my standing in my community.
Then maybe he should have said that, instead of saying "Due process is never a weapon. The denial of it is the weapon."
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