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 -
Trump Derangement Syndrome Utterly Vindicated, Season 10, Episode 19.
Trump promised to act in a lawless, corrupt, and abusive manner. Lo and behold. I don't know if the cruelty is the point, but it certainly seems like a KPI.
The trouble is, of course, that admitting the TDSers were right either requires openly admitting that you're evil
Even assuming this is true, crime does not become legal because you do it really fast. The Alien Enemies Act doesn't apply, and the administration claiming they can nullify due process is textbook tyranny.
TDS in real life. You are assuming a crime. There is a dispute over whether the Trump admin complied with a questionable order. They are arguing they did by dint of completing the removal prior to the judge issuing the order which therefore would not apply.
Yes, that's my point. Trump sycophants constantly dismissed his critics as hysterical, but they keep being right.
I am saying that that is comical bullshit, they know it's bullshit, and their actual argument is "who is going to stop us?"
It really is funny to me. First there is a very real question about who is breaking what norm—namely there is a real core question as to whether the judge had any business doing anything here. He may be the one acting lawlessly.
Second, if the argument is “his policy is right and he is technically legally right but we think the spirit of legal process precludes him from acting in a way” then I don’t think you’ll find many takers.
If the judge was acting in good faith, I would accept the legal process argument. Thing is, I don't think he was; I think he's just using whatever power at his command to stymie the administration. And having seen the lower courts do this for 17 years (since Heller) AND COUNTING on the Second Amendment, I'm not particularly impressed with the idea that one should always obey and let the proces play out.
The relevant question is whether the decision is correct. There is an appeals process to decide that. Disobeying an order because you don’t like it has far more destructive downstream effects.
We had laws that imposed significant restrictions on immigration. People who disagreed with those laws could have abided by them until such time as they could change them. Instead, they organized at a national level to simply ignore them. What you are seeing now is the destructive downstream effects of that decades-long policy.
I stopped believing in naive "rule of law" some time ago, and for what seem to me to be solid, objective reasons. I fundamentally do not believe that we have been operating in an environment of rigorous rule of law, which Trump is now violating; rather, it seems to me that Trump is simply playing the game the way it has been played for decades now.
What’s the limiting principle here? What principles could Trump violate that would give you pause? Or is your judgment based solely on whether he is, at any given moment, helping the people you like and hurting the people you hate?
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