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 -
Lucky for us that was provided "If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove "by a preponderance of evidence" that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal)."
From a legal perspective, yes. There's a reason why the courts (including this Reagan appointed Bush supported conservative judge) have been so consistent here.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of government. Due process applies to government taking action, it is a limit on the ability of government to do what it pleases to people in its jurisdiction.
Courts are lenient, but they are not intended to be blind. They can easily see through the obvious and barely hidden ruse that if Trump really wanted to, he could help facilitate Garcia's return quite easily. One easy way to help for instance would be to stop paying El Salvador to hold him there.
This isn't unique to the Trump admin, judges have always been able to consider a wider context in their decisions. This can even happen with normal citizens in criminal/civil court. There is a reason why the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on this, despite judicial disagreements they're all seasoned experts just like Wilkinson and they understand this well.
So if they do this tomorrow via zoom call, you're going to switch sides on the debate and boldly battle the people claiming that bad things have happened?
I'm excited just imagining all the consistency!
The government took many actions that it pleased to people in it's jurisdictions in facilitating the 10-30 million.
Do we have any evidence that this is the case beyond Van Hollen claiming that the ES VP told him this? Given the TdA people we are paying for, that seems like a situation with a high likelihood for misunderstandings.
It might be surprising to hear that some people care about the rule of law instead of just partisan "Lawbreaking I agree with = good, lawbreaking I don't like = bad" but yes.
I recommend looking up people like John Locke and William Blackstone to get a basic idea of the foundational values our modern western legal system operate on.
Great. I'm sure you have a large backlog of posts making this same point at progressives, right? Are you familiar with the concept of an "isolated demand for rigor"?
Are you implying that you a stranger, not knowing everything I talk about by the nature of being a complete stranger have any means whatsoever to accuse me of hypocrisy here?
If you're gonna argue with the made up vision of other people you don't know that you have imagined in your head, then enjoy yourself.
I'm heavily hinting at it, while offering you every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that the accusation is inapplicable.
Needless to say, I shant be holding my breath, and absence of evidence is very much Bayesian evidence of absence.
"if you don't entertain my made up accusation of a stranger I don't know anything about, then it must be true" is an interesting way to look at the world
I've been arguing about politics online for seven presidential administrations. If called to task for being a partisan, I can reference my old flame wars about the war in Iraq and W-era abortion laws as evidence that I am at least historically willing to be angry at Republicans. Can you really not think of a single time you made a post or comment or argument or shower tirade in which you were upset at progressives for some violation of procedure?
Cause that seems kinda telling.
I am no under obligation to dox myself or other accounts of mine on the internet for the satisfaction of a stranger who believes they can read my mind. If you wish to know my views on anything in particular, ask me. Otherwise I request you to stop assuming things.
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