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 charges are real. They are being tried in a courtroom with very real consequences if Trump is convicted. That’s not a fake charge. They are politically motivated charges, and I’ll agree this is pretty obvious.
I think conviction is less obvious as you will likely have trouble seating a jury unbiased enough to not instantly lose on appeal. Even then I would give at least a 30% on a hung jury and maybe 15% on a mistrial due to jury misconduct (my best guess Isa juror getting caught writing a book while serving on the jury, which happened during the OJ Simpson trial), which means that you might not get a conviction until next year.
The interesting case to me is states removing Trump from the ballot in absence of a conviction. I don’t think there’s actually a precedent for doing that even at local levels, and Trump is not only a mainstream candidate for president (and the presumptive GOP nominee), but polling even to slightly ahead of Biden. If Trump is removed, that would be pretty clear official interference.
I know that this is going to come across as mean/uncharitable but define "real" because I think that this question of is really one of the core points of disagreement between Right and Left.
I mean that the state thinks it has enough evidence that he did what they’re accusing him of that it’s worth bring to a jury trial. And that if convicted he goes to a real prison.
I think the prosecution is politically motivated and if he were anyone else he would never have been charged with these crimes because they’re pretty common in the political class.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you underestimate how "game-able" jury selection is. And even if it's straightforwardly certain to be overturned on appeal, I again point to Ted Stevens — just secure conviction before the election, but make sure the overturning on appeal only comes after the election.
According to whom? That is to say, who has the legal authority to rule what is or isn't "official interference"? And even if they do rule so, what remedy is available after the fact?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link