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 -
What are you talking about? Politicians break the law all the time! Whether it's through illegal schemes as part of the political process, or graft conducted at the expense of the political office. Explain to me why Trump "can't seem to stop breaking the law" compared to: Nancy Pelosi's infamous insider trading; Diane Feinstein's husband profiting off business ties to China; Joe Biden profiting off Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings.
American politicians break the law all the time by selling themselves to the highest bidder, and you want to grandstand about how Trump keeps breaking the law. I bet you jaywalk.
Insider trading laws are extremely lax with regard to transactions made by congresspeople. This is very convenient for them, and they should be pressured to ban congressional stock trading. The same can be said for Feinstein's conflicts of interest due her husband's business ties. Improper? Unethical? Sure. Illegal? They have expensive law degrees and lawyers (also with expensive law degrees), and they wrote the laws. Chances are they know exactly where the line is and didn't cross it. Prosecutors can't be held responsible for selective prosecution if the law hasn't actually been broken; they have no recourse even if they think lawmakers are scumbags that belong in prison.
There is an impeachment investigation over this run by congressional Republicans. It's not going well, by the way. I share your cynicism that he might have colluded with his son in influence peddling, but coming up with compelling evidence that stands up under scrutiny hasn't gone well even with motivated people at the helm. Trump, by contrast, managed to get caught on tape admitting that he possessed classified documents that he didn't declassify before leaving office. He's not merely unethical (like most of Washington), but also criminal (by the letter of the law) and incompetent. This astonishing combination of characteristics suffices to explain his legal troubles, or at least casts doubt on the theory that unprecedented Democrat norm-breaking is primarily to blame.
I've been browsing themotte for a while now and at times have been tempted to comment. This is the first time I feel i have something to contribute to a conversation. My response to this bit is catalyzed by the recent attention @ymeskhout has been bringing to lawfare.
If there is low-grade or open conservative hostility toward the establishment that Trump is the avatar of, it is because of this attitude of "we make the rules, we sneeringly violate the spirit of them and then aggressively prosecute those who don't play the game as sociopathically as we do." I am tired of people like ymeskhout sitting asking about evidence when we all know exactly what game is being played and the only thing that matters is exactly how well the corruption is concealed and how well the law is "played around".
I would argue now that the Democrats as a party have becoming exceptionally more skilled than Republicans at concealing their corruption and gaming the system to the point that they are comfortable openly flaunting their impunity. The anger that Trump is the voice of is the increasing modern understanding of just how rigged the game is and who exactly is rigging it.
More options
Context Copy link
I think that's attributing too much competency to them.
Was the Obama admin's bragging of being 'scandal-free' true because they were so good at 'knowing where the lines is' or was it just because 99% of the talking heads on TV were so starry-eyed, financially-tied, potentially blackmailed that they could not do their job and uncover scandals? Heritage.org seems to lean toward the latter. Benghazi? Not a scandal? Clinton's server? Not a scandal?
I think being a good politician is 50% knowing-where-the-line-is (which I don't think anyone can do 100% as there are thousands of potential felonies at any given time), and 50% being in the right position with the people who could potentially get you in trouble.
The magic of 'A federal criminal investigation produced no charges, but FBI Director James Comey reported that the secretary and her colleagues “were extremely careless” in handling national secrets.'. See also the infamous Steele dossier.
Here is another example. Before you exclaim 'But he did get in trouble!', people who are quite a bit on the left seem to agree with my version of things. Perhaps there needed some kind of cultural moment for the 'gay top Democrat donor' privilege to be overridden...
Sometimes it seems that we need the police to protect black lives from Democrats.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link