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 is the steel man for the Trump fake elector scheme being no big deal? To be clear, I'm not talking about a steel man of Trump's behavior as it relates to J6 itself (the tweets, the speech, the reaction to the crowd, etc.), I'm talking exclusively about the scheme where, according to the Democrat/J6 report/Jack Smith narrative, Trump conspired to overturn the election by trying to convince various states, and later Pence, to use a different slate of electors. Here is the basic narrative (largely rephrased from this comment along with the Jack Smith indictment):
There was no outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 election (in the event someone replies with evidence there was, you would also need to prove that Trump knew it at the time to justify his actions)
Trump's advisers, advisers that were appointed by himself, repeatedly told him there was no outcome-determinative fraud after looking into it. Despite this, Trump still insisted there was outcome-determinative fraud. Trump still insisted even after he started losing court cases left and right about there being outcome-determinative fraud. Assuming 1 is true this means that Trump is either knowingly lying or willfully ignoring people he himself picked
Trump, despite knowing there wasn't outcome-determinative fraud (assuming 2), still tried to change the outcome of the election. First, he tried the courts where he knowingly lied about there being outcome-determinative fraud in court filings. When that failed he tried contacting various state legislatures and other state officials to ask them to certify his slate of electors. When that failed, his final option was to try to convince Pence to either use his slate of electors to win (a slate of electors not officially certified despite claiming to be certified), or to invalidate enough state's electors to make it so no one gets 270 electors, throwing the election to the house where Trump would then hopefully win given it becomes 1 state 1 vote there.
With that narrative, here are the Trump critiques that I want a steel man defense of:
Trump knowingly lied about there being outcome-determinative fraud in the 2020 election. This is wrong.
Trump tried to use this lie to change the results of the election. This is wrong.
Trump used this lie to get slates of electors to falsely certify they were the chosen electors of that state. This is wrong
Trump tried to convince various state legislatures that these were the lawfully chosen slate of electors and to decertify the Biden slate and certify his slate. This is wrong.
Trump tried to convince Pence to step outside of his constitutional authority to make him president. This is wrong
The strongest steel man that I can come up with involved the case of Hawaii in 1960
The New York Times summarizes the situation,
While this is the closest prior case of something similar, and thus no big deal, what Trump did is still different enough that it can be meaningfully distinguished:
Both Nixon and Kennedy had good reason to believe they won. Trump didn't.
Kennedy's first slate of electors, the ones that weren't certified, weren't the ones eventually counted. Only the ones certified by the state were counted. Trump's false electors were never certified, so asking Pence to certify them was completely unprecedented.
Nixon accepted that Hawaii had final say over what was and wasn't their slate of electors. Trump didn't and continually insisted his slate was correct.
Another argument that I don't think is strong, but nonetheless might be the strongest steel man:
This is not a strong argument because then it would've just been a constitutional coup and those are still wrong. The way many Latin American countries have constitutional coups is that they stack the court that allows them to reinterpret their constitution to give them more power or that allows them to violate term limits. This is still wrong despite technically being legal. The problem is the norm breaking, not the technical legality.
You keep saying "outcome determinative fraud" as though the first part matters -- how's anyone to know whether the fraud was 'outcome determinative' or not without serious investigative authority; maybe even at all, given the way the ballots get separated from the PII early on in American elections.
Actually you lead me to something I've thought for quite a while in the 2020 aftermath -- the way that courts require proof of fraud that turned the election directly led to the low quality of some of the Trump campaign's lawsuits. If you are expected to prove not only that there was fraud against you, but also that the fraud amounted to at least some specific number of votes, unless you have significant cooperation from the folks counting the ballots (hint: Trump did not) your only play is to throw everything you have at the wall and hope that enough votes are found to stick.
This didn't work ofc, but I'm not sure that anything else would have worked better -- why don't you try a steelman: put yourself in the shoes of a Trump who was absolutely positive that there was significant fraud in PA, GA and NV, but can't prove exactly how much. What is your best move?
It is hard to put myself in these shoes without knowing why I am so positive there was significant fraud in the first place. This is obviously because the moves I make depend on why I am so sure. Am I sure because I had someone admit they committed fraud? Okay, I'd pursue that and hope they rat more people out. Am I sure because of statistical anomalies? Well, if I am positive there was fraud based off of statistical anomalies then I'd use that to target my investigation to look for harder, specific evidence. And if the statistical anomaly is strong enough by itself, I'd do a fireside chat that is amounts to a powerpoint presentation on "here is statistical evidence of fraud", and if it really is strong enough, then the MSM will either be forced to report on its strength, or their contortions trying to debunk it will be obvious to everyone, winning the public to your side. If the reason I am so sure is that I have video evidence of fraud, I would post that to the world as well with the same MSM reaction. Either way, now you have the public on your side (assuming the evidence really is that strong), so now, when you go to court, even if it isn't technically within the law, courts are to bend over backwards to find a legal interpretation to give the election to Trump if there is huge public pressure to do so (public pressure acquired from posting very strong public evidence). And if the courts still don't work, with enough public pressure, even Democrat politicians would be forced to admit there was fraud and they'd join the Republicans in not certifying Biden. I hope that makes sense since it's hard to be concrete without knowing why I am so certain.
What actually happened is that Trump followed a million different leads, but none really went anywhere. This is much more consistent with a person doing motivated reasoning. If Trump did have rock solid evidence, then that would be the evidence would be repeated everywhere from people defending Trump's actions. But it's not that way. It's a hodgepodge of different things more akin to a gish gallop.
I mean, there was a video of a precinct pulling out a box of ballots that had been covered by a table cloth after sending away all observers. A month later, a reporter reviewed the video footage and insists that the box was legitimate and that there is "no evidence of any wrongdoing."
I think even with the official story there is obvious wrong doing - particularly sending away all observers and then deciding to continue counting without waiting for the observers to return. But is that wrong doing significant enough to sway the election? Probably not this specific instance. But how many specific instances are needed before it might sway the election?
Of course, no one was so kind as to leave a genuine smoking gun, a video confession in the midst of the act. There were a great number of times poll workers violated local election rules, and these instances are as proven as it can be outside a court of law. But without being able to investigate these, it is impossible to know if these actually turned the election.
Your assumption that the "public" would rally around any given evidence of fraud is laughable. This is a close election. Everyone either voted for the other guy or didn't vote at all. Everyone is either motivated against accepting evidence their guy actually lost, or politically disengaged.
I'm assuming you voted for Biden? Imagine if you saw a video of someone "cleaning up unclear ballots" to favor Biden. Instances where neither candidate was selected or both candidates were selected by accident, and every time the poll worker filled in the Biden bubble and erased the Trump bubble. Do you think that the average Biden voter, upon seeing this, would say, "That's F'd up! I'm going to share this with everyone I know and protest that Trump should be the rightful president?"
Of course not! They would justify it to themselves as just a lone wolf that couldn't affect much, or that "they voted for a Democrat for senator, of course they meant to vote Biden!" They certainly wouldn't amplify the video.
What about those who don't have a horse in the game? Well, they were too focused on whatever it is that people who don't vote focus on. Imagine not caring about politics. Crazy stuff.
Trump voters really were convinced by the videos and accounts going around, so much so that upwards of 70% of Republicans still believe the election was stolen. Having this group of the public on his side did pretty much nothing for Trump besides get him into even more trouble once they decided to try a riot for themselves.
Starting with a response to this since it might shed some light on my posting motivations (if need be). I did not vote in 2016 (not old enough in '16) or 2020, nor do I plan to in 2024, mostly cause I live in New York state, among other reasons. However, if you dragged me in front of a voting booth, then I'm 99% certain I'd vote a straight R ticket in every election, including 2024. In fact, I'm probably the closest to voting than I've ever been mostly cause I really like Vance, even if Trump has soured on me. But, even without Vance, I'd probably still still vote a straight R ticket if you dragged me there.
Did you read my comment about the CEO and worker stealing money? I think this applies here.
I know the US is incredibly polarized, but if Trump presented smoking gun evidence of fraud, I sincerely believe it would break through that polarization. The reason it didn't break through was that the evidence wasn't strong enough. Sure, you could say the left wing MSM would just bury any good smoking gun evidence, but if they did, the public would see through it ala Epstein killing himself, or, if you take the Hanania view that media is biased but still fundamentally truth seeking like I do, then media would cover the story in a biased, but still truth presenting way.
RE: the worker stealing money analogy:
For me the analogy breaks down at the beginning. Republicans have always accused Democrats of fraud. Florida has a few counties that are notorious for it. Chicago is notorious for it. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Let's say a CEO knows that employees sometimes waste time on their phones or talking about non-work topics, and that this cuts into their bottom line. Sometimes the company has bad quarters, and some grumbling is given to the employees getting paid to chatter. A few of the more egregious examples get written up but not much happens.
Then the company has a year where everyone works from home. There are many more reports of employees doing errands during normal business hours, more reports of overtime than usual, time card irregularities. The business has a horrible year and ends Q4 with a loss.
Is it reasonable for the boss to think he's being taken for a sucker?
It seems the disagreement ends up at disagreeing on our priors of how likely election fraud is, like with a lot of other people that have replied. My priors on fraud are way lower than yours, so I need way stronger evidence to overcome that. So, for your version of the hypo I would disagree with
this part because it shows decently strong evidence (assuming the reports aren't spurious) for employees wasting more time than they usually do, thus explaining the bad year. Meanwhile, I don't see strong evidence for 2020 fraud that would explain Trump's bad year. I think it's not strong cause my prior on election fraud in the US is so low, but, if the same events occurred in a random third world country with a history of unstable democracy and fraud, the same evidence might actually push me over the edge and conclude that was fraud. (or maybe not. Depending how much I cared about this random 3rd world country, I still might not think there was fraud if the official explanation poked enough holes the fraud explanation). So, ultimately answering the hypo, yes it is reasonable for the boss to think he's being taken for a sucker, but the differences are sufficient enough that the hypo doesn't apply to 2020 Trump
If you click the Heritage link in my comment above it has documentation on over a thousand proven instances of recent (last 30 years) voter fraud in the US leading to over a thousand criminal convictions and overturning dozens of (generally local) elections. I think my priors are better supported than yours.
I will say I am familiar with that link, because I recently used that same link to disprove the supposed effectiveness of voter fraud. The person whom I had argued with had suggested that 200K fraudulent votes in the right locations would overturn the election. I took him at his word on that number, but argued that an organization whose goal is to find as much fraud as possible found less than 1% of that number over 30 years.
It also establishes that the government does have methods of detecting fraud, thus establishing that the fraud would have to either evade said methods or the audits themselves would also have to be fraudulent. This matters because the claim often pushed is that voter ID is necessary; which, even if we say elections are being stolen, if voter ID wouldn't catch it then what's the point of focusing on it? Trump repeatedly claims fraud in states that already have it.
I will say on a personal note that with regards to the whole, "if evidence existed the public would see past any attempts to bury it" idea, I'm not even sure. My personal view is that, similar to the Haitians eating cats story, I've generally become numb to claims of evidence. This is because quite frankly I've heard too many stories online that end up being bullshit with an unrelated or AI generated pictures that I figure someone with more time will sort them out. I don't even remember how many are the same ones I've already heard and have been debunked but still manage to circulate or get twisted by the repeated retellings. If you want to say I'm intellectually weak or biased, sure. I'm just telling you how humans work.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think I ever denied local fraud, but do any of those cases relate to national elections to congress? Or statewide elections for something like a governor? Were any of them significant enough to even have the chance to flip an election (aka not those voted in 2 states examples or single cases of a felon voting when they shouldn't. However, someone organizing hundreds or thousands of these cases would count) even if they actually didn't flip it? Have any of them been linked to the democrat or republican party or has it been for personal gain?
It might read like I'm moving the goalposts, but small scale fraud like this is consistent with "swiping a few dollars here and there" in my CEO hypo, so I've been consistent.
Being more clear now, my prior for local fraud in the middle of nowhere is way way higher than my prior for fraud for a statewide or national level election, so skimming that that fraud database doesn't really surprise me.
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