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 -
The constitution does not provide the VP the power to deny election results.
The fact you can’t agree on that when Pence could (god bless him) doesn’t bode well for your ability to evaluate something more nuanced like say election integrity and reasonable standards of evidence.
Your avoidance of presenting evidence, instead of theories about what could have happened or dissatisfaction with how the election was run, remains telling.
If you think he's arguing in bad faith, report rather than responding. Either he's arguing in bad faith, and you calling him out won't tell him anything he doesn't already know, or he's not, and you falsely accusing him will incense him for no reason.
Ehh I’m not sure I’d call it “bad faith” but you’re not wrong that it’s not the most productive conversation.
The path we’ve gone down about the VP election theory is frankly cracking me up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are very hung up on this. It sounds like you want to defer all debate to some omnipotent authority so you don't have to defend your interpretation. "Deny election results"? Those "results" are exactly what is under dispute! To me, your argument parses as follows: "It's illegal to dispute the election after it is stolen." Oh, ok!
Likewise, you could ask for evidence, but I guess it's easier for you to smugly imply that I have one. The fact that chains of custody no longer exist doesn't bother you at all? Vote counts stopping across several swing states? Nothing is ever evidence I guess: you've declared a priori that you are neutrally describing the "result," and I am advancing "theories".
The legal theory that the constitution empowers the VP to unilaterally determine election outcomes is an utterly ridiculous one and Trump’s own VP refused to go along with it.
The VP’s constitutionally defined role in the election process is a distinct issue from whether there was significant fraud in the 2020 election.
This week’s thread is full of requests for evidence by me and others that the 2020 election was stolen, rigged, or otherwise plagued with widespread fraud.
None has been provided; mostly there is whining over the request and lawyerly approach by everyone’s favorite public defender.
You are welcome to step up and make the case.
Nobody proposed this theory. This does not resemble what was debated in 2020 in the slightest.
You have decided a priori that what I have brought up re: mail-in ballots and urban machines isn't worth discussing: why should I provide more evidence when it will be equally dismissed as no evidence.
Trump claimed Pence could unilaterally decide to decertify the entire election.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/01/fact-check-trump-falsely-claims-pence-had-right-overturn-election/9284564002/
I decided nothing a priori about presented evidence.
Looking back on this thread, I’m not seeing where you presented evidence of specific cases of voter fraud or the like; I’m seeing you describe how it might have happened.
Those are not the same thing and the particular demand is for concrete evidence; we have an oversupply of theories here.
No, the theory was that Pence could refuse to open and count electors from disputed states, which would return the matter to the respective state legislatures. That is not "unilaterally decid[ing] to decertify the entire election". Your frame is a bungled media summary. In evidence of that summary, they cite Trump referencing a law Congress passed to explicitly disambiguate the Constitutional passage in question.
Not sure if you realize this but by choosing to not accept the election results of any given state the VP would be in effect single-handedly deciding the election outcome, given who controls which state legislatures, if he chose to.
Which was the whole point of the exercise, which Pence rejected.
Here he is in his own words:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/read-pences-full-letter-saying-he-cant-claim-unilateral-authority-to-reject-electoral-votes
I think the words I used align with Pence’s statement and directly follow from the words you used.
Trump agrees with my interpretation too.
Why do you disagree with Trump and Pence on their shared understanding of this theory and its implications?
The VP would be "single-handedly" determining the result by handing the result to other elected officials.
You’re trying really hard to avoid the obvious consequence that both Trump and Pence state outright.
You’re making a distinction without a difference for no reason that actually matters here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link