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 -
The difference is very clear. There is a prescribed process for changing the law. You introduce a bill, it gets voted on, it gets signed, it becomes an act. You don't just appoint someone as an elector who has not met the legislated requirements, which is what Trump asked for.
I wouldn't describe it as "slightly" differently, the distinction is large and important in my eyes. It would not have been the same request. But yes, if he had done legal things instead of illegal things, he would indeed have been fine.
If enforcing the law on a criminal sets a precedent, it would be a good precedent to set.
Now, please answer my question. What oath of office includes "the public interest"? I looked and couldn't find one. I'm sure you wouldn't just make something like that up.
So basically every American is guilty of at one time petitioning the POTUS to do an unconstitutional executive order?
I have to award the points to him because this feels like it’s constantly violated and the sweeping effects of it would be everyone goes to jail and we have no one out of jail to be prison guards.
The precedent you want to set is well everyone goes to jail if applied equally.
More options
Context Copy link
Hey, I want you to do this scheme.
Option A — Scheme is implemented illegally.
Option B — Scheme is implemented illegally.
So clearly unless someone says “do Option B” they mean “do Option A.”
If Trump had said “I want you to organize a special election to provide a different slate but first pass a law saying we are changing how the slate is chosen and the governor must sign it, and then conditional on that passage here is our slate” presumably you would say that was legal.
But because he cut to the end goal without specifying the steps you think it is…damning? You are intuiting Option A when B could be just as viable.
There is also a big mens rea issue here
More options
Context Copy link
Georgia's legislature could change those legislated requirements, that's what it means for them to be a legislature. Except, I'm sure, there's some a priori excuse why when Trump asks for this, there's a special exception because he didn't do it very nicely.
This is a political prosecution, what are you talking about? The precedent being set isn't that people who break the law go to jail, it's that people the government likes get off and people the government dislikes get prosecuted. You cannot be missing the point this badly. There is no fairness here, they are not about to use this precedent to arrest Democrats who wanted 2016 overturned. This is an insane gap in your argument.
Of course I made it up, it was a hypothetical! Backhanded sarcasm troll concern "I'm sure you wouldn't just..." Don't be rude!
Well it seems a bit silly to argue that "anything could be defined as asking an official to violate their oath of office" when your own example doesn't.
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