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 -
Correct on all points. What follows?
In the hypothetical, I imagine a civil war follows between the loyalists and the traitors.
I don't predict such an event happening anytime soon, the large large majority of fellow Americans are patriotic enough to respect the constitution. And the current inquiry into contempt of court is at present halted until the appeals court can rule on the merits, which will then begin an official investigation. Trump has largely respected the judicial branch so far, including the SC's current temporary block on AEA deportations so it will remain to be seen for the current contempt inquiry and if the Trump admin chooses to comply in the case they are ruled against there and have exhausted their legal options.
You mention civil war.
I'm a fairly big fan of Lincoln. In the actual civil war, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. That was a very explicit violation of rule of law, and by no means the only one Lincoln committed, and the courts simply let him do as he pleased. How do events like that fit into your conception of the rule of law? How does "Justice Marshal has made his decision, now let him enforce it"? How does "the switch in time that saved Nine"?
Aww, don't just skip to the executive summary. You really ought to show your work.
The traitors refuse to follow the law. They push meritless legal arguments to the hilt, and then when those arguments are struck down, they flip a few clauses around and resubmit, all the while insisting that they're following the law to the letter in perfectly good faith, and the fact that they're still doing the stuff they were told not to do is just a misunderstanding because they weren't really told to not do it. They claim the courts are illegitimate, and threaten retaliation through various legal methods, from impeachment to court packing, against judges who rule against them. Faced with such broad-based opposition, the courts are faced with a choice eroding their own authority by issuing orders they know will not be followed and they cannot enforce, or declining to issue rulings and allowing the defiance de-facto in a hope to preserve their influence long-term.
When attempts are made to enforce the law, the traitors riot on a massive scale, coordinate assistance and support for rioters, run PR for them and cover their legal fees. When rioters murder innocent men, women or children, the traitors support such murders and vociferously attack anyone who resists or attempts to hold the murderers accountable.
The traitors constantly claim that the Loyalists are traitors themselves, and claim that it is the "loyalists" who have abandoned the Constitution. Any mistake or conflict with the law on the Loyalist side, and there will always be some, will be held up as evidence that the Loyalists have abandoned any right to claim rule of law is illegitimate.
The conflict steadily escalates, with political norms and long-standing traditions toppling in a steady cadence. The traitors openly support mob violence against Loyalist targets, and assassination of Loyalist leaders. Failed assassination attempts are publicly mourned. Successful murders are, again, publicly celebrated. Such attempts gather steam and begin popping up more and more frequently.
At some point, the killing begins in earnest.
Any part of that sound unlikely to you?
Article 1 section 9 Clause 2. The legal controversy over Lincoln was whether or not the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was sufficient enough for such a declaration, the ability for them to choose to delegate the specifics was unclear.
Most likely an apocryphal quote and you believing it's real shows a pop history understanding of government. Andrew Jackson never actually defied the courts.
This is a very common myth, I understand why you might have thought it was true. But he never actually defied any Supreme Court ruling, nor it is likely he said the famous quote associated with him.
John Roberts changing his view is not unconstitutional.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link