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 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.
You're conflating the theory of the cause and the theory of the effect.
You said:
Based on the direct quotation of Pence I’ve provided that closely matches my description you took issue with, are you able to acknowledge you were wrong?
This was what you said:
Not even Pence went this far. Pence, at best said that he did not believe he had the power to "unilaterally" "count" votes.
Is this a distinction without a difference? Well, clearly there's a big gap between returning disputed electors to the state legislatures, and radically resolving the dispute with the sole authority of VP. You can argue that, in effect, Pence would have decided the election for Trump by returning matters to the states. But you can't make up that this was what Trump et al. were proposing in the constitution, and then call it "ridiculous".
I really need you to slow down and actually read the words I wrote.
Let me repeat directly quoting Pence:
So you’re wrong twice here, once on what Pence and Trump described (matching my own words very closely), and again when you say:
Because the former leads directly to the latter, which was the whole point, and publicly acknowledged by a wide range of figures in the right.
So I’m not making it up and a wide range of legal experts have called the idea some synonym of ridiculous because it so plainly is in both term of history and game theory.
This is tiresome. You presented a strawman of the VP-elector theory. Just because Pence repeated that strawman in his rejection of the theory does not absolve you from using a strawman. (Note: Pence's summary doesn't even go as far as yours: Pence claimed he could not unilaterally reject electors, while you claimed Trump thought Pence could unilaterally declare the entire election.)
Yes, the need for VP-elector theory was so Trump could attempt to be sworn in. That was the imagined effect. But that is not what the theory justified itself by. It's as if you said that Dobbs v. Jackson is the theory that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions.
Holy shit man.
Pence literally said “decide.”
i said “determine.”
Those are synonyms.
I cannot make you employ basic reading comprehension, let alone any other reasoning, so I’m done here.
Please remain civil, even when you suspect your interlocutors are playing dumb. Talking past each other won’t make it any better. For that matter, neither will flouncing off. Random readers can and will come away with the impression that you’re the unreasonable one.
More options
Context Copy link
Do I still get to reply after I've been blocked?
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
I’m using plain English that matches statements by both Trump and Pence while you seem intent on pointless nitpicking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link