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 -
Unless you are willing to grapple with the likely meaning of "rebellion" in this quote (given the specific historical context), you're still not engaging with the meat of what "insurrection" means - this quote simply says that speech or writing could qualify, but only where they were connecting to "inciting others to engage in rebellion." Given that the antecedent was the actual Civil War, you're skipping the hard part, which is analogizing actual, immediate, and realizable secession from the Union to the facts of January 6th. I'm not saying that's impossible, but just saying that speech or writing could qualify under certain circumstances doesn't really help, because the circumstances are the biggest part of the dispute.
Trump's Supreme Court brief does not dispute that Jan 6 was an insurrection, he merely argues that his conduct did not constitute "engaging in" that insurrection.
That's with good reason - an attempt to prevent the rightfully elected President from taking office through the use of force is an absolutely central example of insurrection, and it's sensible for Trump's lawyers to focus on more plausible arguments. Imagine if a mob of angry Virginians had stormed the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the certification of Lincoln's election - would anyone be claiming that the South's rebellion didn't begin until Fort Sumter?
It doesn't dispute that because it isn't actually a meaningful issue to address and it isn't necessary to defend their side of the case (and it deals with lots of facts not relevant), not because there's no case to be made - if you read the brief carefully, the whole point is that whether or not what others did that day could qualify, the argument is that nothing Trump did would. At most, his brief simply characterizes what the Colorado Supreme Court held, and does not admit its correctness or otherwise opine.
Your second paragraph just assumes the conclusion to be proved - while that's one interpretation of the results, it's not the only reasonable one, nor indisputably correct. And your Virginians hypothetical, while useful to think about, hides more than it illuminates because it only seems particularly bad if you also allow all the subsequent Civil War context in, and assume that their motive is exactly as described. If, for example, their motive was plausibly "wanted to confirm that all electors had an opportunity to cast their votes uninfluenced by outside pressures" and the result after what they did wasn't the Civil War but a peaceful transition to the next administration, I don't think we end up with the 14th Amendment in its current form.
It's absolutely a meaningful issue to address - if there was no insurrection, Trump cannot have engaged in one, and the case fails. It's also not a redundant question - it's possible to incite a riot that is not an insurrection, and it is possible for an insurrection to occur without you engaging in it. If there was a strong case to be made that Jan 6 was not an insurrection, it would manifestly be in Trump's interest to make it.
I disagree entirely. An attempted coup is very bad even if it doesn't lead to civil war. Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch did not lead to civil war, but it would be silly to claim that it wasn't "particularly bad".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link