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 -
I don't know if it matters to you or not, but this appears to be a flat out lie. Cheers.
“Promise to indict this guy” is a pretty specific claim, though, and I’d rate it as much more damning than gesturing at “holding people in power accountable.” So would VDH, presumably, since he clearly wants to get his shots in at Pelosi and especially Hillary.
Did you get your quotes from this Examiner article? They follow it up by really assuming the conclusion. Apparently, a “longtime voice in liberal circles” at WaPo tweeted something about this representing “accountability.” The Examiner takes this as proof that “It does not have to involve a specific charge or punishment for a specific act.”
Imagine the bizarro-world where VDH is cheering Hillary’s indictment for e-mail crimes. Might he use words like “accountable,” given that he’s sure she actually did it? Somehow I doubt the Examiner would be holding that up as evidence of systemic bias.
More options
Context Copy link
I was looking into this today. I can’t find him saying “he would indict trump”. But he did repeatedly say he’s sued trump numerous times and is proven successful. A different DA or prior DA did specifically use the term indict trump in election material.
So it seems like he wisely didn’t directly declare he would prosecute but did imply he was the best man for the job.
I’d rate “flat out lie” to not be true. It certainly was part of the election.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/31/alvin-bragg-made-his-tough-trump-record-central-hi/
From direct quotes being able to prosecute Trump was an election issue.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have any evidence for it being a lie, like you can't find it mentioned anywhere, or someone shows that it was quoted out of context, or something like that?
From this article. As with most coverage of this topic, it milks that word “accountable” for all it’s worth. The rest of it is spent explaining the “liberal code.”
For the record, I’m inclined to believe the prosecution is politically motivated. That’s a low bar to clear.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link