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 think this is insufficiently cynical/paranoid/worried.
As you say, the point is to do things perceived as hurting the outgroup without predicted cost of getting in too much trouble. But the people doing the perception and prediction are vast, and not all are wise or farseeing.
This doesn't matter! Trump didn't win Colorado in 2016, he didn't win the primary in Colorado in 2016. Even if it continues to the general election, there's no path to the White House that turns on Colorado. The standing and jurisdiction issues make this specific sort of challenge restricted to Colorado and a couple other (similarly unimportant) states, and the timeline means that even if someone started today to try to reflect the same processes backward, it wouldn't be able to hit for 2026, nevermind 2024.
But that's the sort of analysis that's somewhere between spherical-cow and infinite frictionless plane, assuming that one's enemies and even own side have not animating factor of their own. But the pebbles vote is the avalanche.
I linked to the past discussion on Baude and Pualsen's paper, not just because it's relevant, but because the court here endorsed its logic in the context of judicial review. But Baude did not limit to judicial review. Instead, their paper holds that every officer of the United States or state government with any power to review ballots has not just a power but a responsibility to unilaterally reject a Section-Three disqualified candidate. And that's the explicit text!
So to avoid further escalation, we do not merely need that every court and judge eventually deny or reverse this one ruling, but that everyone with the power to act on this chooses to put down particularly tempting and shiny weapon. Indeed, by the plain text of this decision, even if SCOTUS stays matters explicitly, the Colorado Secretary of State retains the power to reject ineligible candidates, as simple as can be. It's just the Secretary of State's determination, then, rather than being explicitly prohibited by court mandate from including Trump on the ballot. Unless and until a court issues an order explicitly requiring otherwise, there's only the often-broad limits of their powers under state law -- in the hands of people who can now, quite accurately, argue in the face of future lawsuits that they were not violating clearly established law. And that will remain the case after the primary, after the general election, and even after the election has been counted. In every state.
There's reason I compare this to the independent state legislature theory.
I was hesitant to talk about this publicly, for the same reason that I've been hesitant to talk about some of your drone stuff privately, even though it's a very interesting and important topic. But where there was a minor risk that public conversation might at least go different directions than Baude and Paulsen's papers, if not larger ones, a court case going to SCOTUS overwhelms any risk I or we could present.
I don't think people are stupid enough to try this, even with 50 Secretaries of State and a few thousand relevant electoral officials. It doesn't take many snake eyes, and I've been wrong before, though.
Oh, hell. That is definitely worse than I expected.
And that’s not even the worst part! There’s implications to the Baude argument that even today I’m totally unwilling to post in public clear text, even past what’s already happened and is being discussed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And we have our first
moronvolunteer!.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link