site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 2024

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.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump v. United States, the presidential immunity opinion, dropped this morning. In broad strokes it goes like this:

1. For those acts that are pursuant to the President's "conclusive and preclusive" authority there is absolute immunity.

2. For those acts which are official acts by the President but not covered by (1) there is a presumption of immunity that can only be overcome by showing the prosecution would pose no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."

3. For those acts which are unofficial there is no immunity.

4. Those acts for which the President has immunity cannot be used as evidence to demonstrate any element of a crime for which the President would not have immunity.


I think it's just incredible that the six justices in the majority looked at the Navy-SEALs-assassinate-a-rival hypothetical and went "yep, sounds right, no liability." Roberts' majority opinion even mentions the President's orders to the armed forces as one of the things that falls under (1).

I think the way is clear. Biden orders Trump, the six justices in the majority, and let's say the next 2-3 top Republican candidates whacked (just for safety). He probably gets impeached and removed but can't go to jail (thanks SCOTUS!) Harris takes over as President and I think it's unlikely she would also get impeached. Dems don't want to hand the presidency to Mike Johnson. That gives Harris plenty of time to stack the court. Republican convention in disarray due to the deaths of their prominent candidates. Biden obviously out, he'd be ineligible anyway if impeached and removed. Dems probably dump Harris to create a clean break with Biden admin, clearing the way for Whitmer/Newsom/Pritzker/whoever.

The above is fan fiction, of course.

Generally, the ruling makes sense to me: neither Congress nor the States may criminalize the presidency itself. Acts such as firing generals or political officers at the agencies are protected and are not subject to review. Acts further away from the core are subject to commensurately more scrutiny. Just the same, the States may not criminalize the act of ruling against them in court and then arrest judges. Assassinating uncooperative judges is not a core function of the office and would be subject to review.

Clearly we need some balance here. A narrow ruling would result in opposing states’ AGs bringing endless criminal charges against the sitting president, effectively making the office subservient to the states.

The peaceful transfer of power will only exist as long as we don’t prosecute our political rivals as such. If the penalty for holding office is jail, may as well just hold onto it for as long as possible.

For some reason this problem only seems to come up with one specific guy. McConnell isn't buried in criminal accusations; neither is Desantis, Abbott, or pretty much any other major Republican leadership figure. Maybe Trump really is just unusually shady?

  • -12

Hillary faced calls for criminal consequences for her emails as secretary of state. Biden also inappropriately retained classified information and faced a criminal investigation.

But yeah, I'll bite the bullet, Trump is unusually shady.

Yeah. I mean he ordered the assassination of a fifteen year old in a cafe. Oh wait no that was Obama.

Oh well Trump must have tortured a lot of people. No wait that was W.

Well Trump must have sicced his DOJ on parents for exercising their constitutional rights with respect to school boards. No that was Joe.

No one else has done anything comparable to January 6th

  • -16

Yes they’ve done worse (as the things described above). But here are some more:

  1. Incarcerate a whole group of Americans based on their race.

  2. Illegally engage in war (eg Libya).

  3. Set up the whole fake Russia gate scandal.

  4. Lie about WMDs to start a war.

  5. Arguably Iran Contra.

  6. Warrantless spying on all Americans.

I appreciate the thoroughness and earnestness of your list of stuff that presidents have done that you disapprove of, but none of those is worse than trying to overpower a presidential election after the fact with procedural trickery.

Anyway, come on. Trump is a shady guy. He always has been. Trump University was indefensible, and that's par for the course for him.

  • -11

Anyway, come on. Trump is a shady guy. He always has been.

More or less shady that multiple forcible rapes, and burning multiple dozens of men, women and children alive for a PR stunt?

I appreciate the thoroughness and earnestness of your list of stuff that presidents have done that you disapprove of, but none of those is worse than trying to overpower a presidential election after the fact with procedural trickery.

Actually, both sides of politics got involved trying to do this in Florida in 2000.

More comments

My point isn’t that Trump isn’t shady. My point is that most presidents are shady.

And I think you are way off. If you think, for example, the President unilaterally illegally prosecuting a war (usurping a key power of congress with not even a fig leaf of congressional approval) with the far reaching impacts war can have is at least not in the same neighborhood as trying but failing to use hokey legal arguments to stay in power then I just don’t trust your judgement. Ditto with incarcerating thousands of Americans for the crime of being Japanese. Ditto conspiring with the IC to actively undermine free and fair elections in the US (that one HAS to be in the same ballpark — it is about illegally obtaining the presidency albeit more subtlety but with more success). The idea that Trump was unique just elevates current fixation on J6 over a broader historical perspective.

More comments