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 answer isn't obvious. These actions will absolutely discourage anyone with a felony conviction from trying to vote, even if they are legally permitted to, because who wants to risk getting arrested years down the line over something as individually trivial as voting? Felony disenfranchisement currently affects almost a million people in Florida, almost 10% of the adult population, so it's bound to have a significant effect.
In contrast, actual voting fraud is extremely rare. Just for perspective, 19 foreign nationals were charged for illegally voting in North Carolina in 2020. To me, it's not obvious how many of those foreign nationals were acting with malicious intent, or whether they made an honest mistake. Jeopardizing one's immigration status to cast one vote seems like an idiotic gamble. Beyond that, the scenarios where voter fraud is clearly motivated by malicious intent are too sporadic to get a comprehensive accounting for. I'm aware of very few cases, like for example this Nevada man who used his dead wife's ballot to cast a vote.
I suppose you can defend the heavy-handedness if your overriding priority is primarily to tamp down on the handful of actual voter fraud that takes place. But if so, I would like to at least see an earnest attempt to address the collateral damage. Is dissuading a handful of bad actors worth putting some innocent people in jail? Worth dissuading large swathes of the population from legally voting? If so, say so.
Actual voting fraud convictions are extremely rare. Actual voting fraud is unknown as the Republican party was unable to perform any investigation into it for 30+ years.
As much as I am annoyed by the Democrats saying "there is no almost no fraud in the places it is easiest to look and someone would have to have shit for brains to try to commit fraud", it is the same annoyance when Republicans forget their own commissions set up to exactly find fraud and then do not find any.
It is like there is no room for nuance at all and it is all signalling.
The problem is that just because an event is rare, it can still be high-impact when it does occur.
I tend to hate that the Blue Tribe talking point states that "WIDESPREAD" voter fraud is a myth.
Because it doesn't have to be 'widespread' to have a significant effect on outcomes. Even accounting for how ambiguous that term is. If 50,000 fraudulent votes are cast in one precinct, that might not count since it wasn't taking place elsewhere?
And the rarity of it occurring in the past is not sufficient evidence that it won't be widespread in the future, if conditions change.
Of course, the Dems spent years alleging Russian 'interference' with the 2016 election despite no direct evidence, so I also don't think they've demonstrated good faith on the issue anyway.
Surely "widespread" here means "significant"
Of course there is evidence of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.
How many votes were flipped, added, or otherwise how was the actual outcome impacted by Russian interference?
No clue. Perhaps not at all, though of course some states were so close that even a small change might have been significant. But I did say only that there is evidence of attempts to influence the election. That seems pretty clear.
So was it or was it not appropriate for Democrats to claim Russia helped Trump win the election?
Especially one year+ after the fact?
Was that backed by the evidence or not?
If you are asking whether it is appropriate for anyone to intimate that the election was not legitimate: No. Absent something like hacked software or massive ballot box stuffing which is so extreme that it is reasonable to conclude that the vote count did not reflect how actual voters actually voted, it is not appropriate for anyone to claim that an election is not legitimate. So, eg, it is inappropriate to claim that the 2000 Bush victory was illegitimate (it is also unreasonable to make that claim, but that is a topic for another post).
If you are asking whether is it is reasonable to claim that Clinton would have won, absent the Russian efforts, let’s do the math. The closest states that Trump won were Michigan (0.3% margin); Wisconsin (1% margin); and Pennsylvania (1.2% margin). Had Clinton won all three, she would have won the election. So, the question becomes: Is it reasonable to claim that the Russian efforts caused 0.6% +1 of voters to switch from Clinton to Trump (half the largest margin, plus 1)? Based on my understanding of the poli sci literature, I am personally skeptical that campaigning, etc, have much of an effect on voters. And, it is my understanding that the volume of Russian intervention was, in the grand scheme of things, not all that large. So, I, personally, would not make that claim. Nevertheless, there are a lot of unknowns in this area, and given that the margins were so small, it seems to me that reasonable minds might differ on this question, so, no, it is not completely unreasonable to claim that Clinton would have won, absent the Russian efforts.
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