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 -
See their questions 5 and 12, in particular. Again, they still obviously want to keep the option of 'action and inaction together' open as their primary argument, but they directly and affirmatively claim that yes, they think that inaction alone can be "giving aid and comfort" within their reading of Section 3. Of course, this is divorced from the distinction in Section 3 between "engaging in insurrection" and "giving aid and comfort to enemies", which other briefs think are distinct things. I.e., others think that "enemies" must mean "foreign enemies", given whatever history/definitions, whereas the Amar bros do the sort of smashing together of the two parts to get an idea of "giving aid and comfort to people who are engaging in insurrection" rather than "engaging in insurrection" being separate from "giving aid and comfort to enemies".
At best, one could say that they're implicitly claiming that anyone who engages in insurrection is an "enemy", but a Ctrl+F for "enemies" and "enemy" shows only one result for each, neither of which engages with this thorny question. Therefore, I think my reading is a fair representation of what they have actually written in their brief. They might have some other nuanced view that isn't actually in the text of what they wrote, but that's what they wrote. I'll remind you that these are the statements I've made concerning their brief on this question:
I really cannot see how that is not a fair reading of what they wrote.
My bad, I skimmed over question 5 (assuming, given the heading, that it would focus narrowly on the question of whether the presidential oath fits within the oaths described in section 3). You are right, they do seem to say here (though not elsewhere) that inaction can be enough to constitute "giving aid or comfort". I think that's a bad argument (and if you're going to make it you should do so properly rather than in a brief aside while addressing a different issue) - I accept that the Presidential oath confers specific duties on the President and that by inaction he can break his oath. However, section 3 does not address all forms of oathbreaking. It addresses a specific type, which by its verbiage demands action.
All I can say I guess is that this is a very bad brief and while I hope the court rules to disqualify Trump, I also hope they don't rely on the Amars' reasoning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link