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 -
They had, like a webpage and stuff, I can assure you that multiple people agreed this was a good idea -- if they failed to convince enough electors, this just means it was "not a good coup attempt", no?
You'd need to show agreement between the agitators and the actors in order to tarnish the agitators with the crimes of the actors, is my point. Usually it's not a crime to say someone else should do something illegal if there's no provable connection between your speech and their action.
However if you have for example a conversation where someone says to a Trump elector "I think we can get enough defectors to keep Trump out of office, you vote against him and I'll work on convincing others to do the same" and the elector says "ok", that I think could be successfully prosecuted under the same "conspiracy to deny people's rights to have their votes counted" charge that has been levied against Trump.
Aren't Trump and a bunch of people currently charged with a similar sort of (failed) conspiracy involving a attempt to get Georgia election officials to do stuff that they never did? Anyways, the electors who did vote faithlessly would seem to be participants in the (ineffective) 2016 conspiracy?
I think you need to be a lot more specific about what crimes you are alleging based on what actions. Trump has been charged in Georgia with solicitation of violation of oath of a public officer. Those charges are based on direct communications he made to elected Georgia officials. I'm not aware of a similar direct communication on the part of the so-called "Hamilton Electors" scheme soliciting a violation of oath by a Georgia public officer, but do inform me if you know of one.
As for the electors who did vote faithlessly, most of them defected from Clinton and therefore actually strengthened Trump's electoral vote margin. The two Trump electors who defected were from Texas, which did not have a law binding electors to their pledged candidates. Of course none of that precludes them from being involved in a conspiracy to illegally prevent Trump from taking office, but neither do their actions substantiate one. You'd need to make that case on the basis of communications that they had with others, which I have no knowledge of.
If you want to continue to ask "what about X?" please specify the person you think should be charged, the crime they should be charged with, and the evidence that you think proves all elements of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't make the case, well, don't be surprised when a prosecutor doesn't make it either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link