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 -
No, the Congress didn't declare any wars since 1942. That doesn't make your false claim any more true. And the fact that you are using the same fallacious logic as Democrat propaganda instructs you to use is a good confirmation Democrats did deploy an opposition to Trump's actions, and this opposition is quite effective - people are now thinking, completely contrary to the facts, that Trump "launched an illegal war". That didn't happen by itself, they made it happen.
If Congress didn't declare war, committing an act of war is illegal and unconstitutional. I didn't get this from whatever fantasy of Democratic talking points you're imagining, an opposition I haven't seen in any way in the newspapers I read, I got it from carefully reading my tattoo of the US constitution.
No it is not. You are welcome to provide a single precedent confirming otherwise, and the list of Presidents prosecuted for Vietnam, Korea, Libya, Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia, and similar military actions. I don't even require a conviction - a mere holding by any appropriate judicial authority, such as SCOTUS, that all these usages of military were illegal, and that the Supreme Commander of the Military has no rights to use the military without congressional vote, would suffice. Absent that, I will be forced to conclude you pulled this judicial opinion from some place where you have tattoos - which is usually not a good source of judicial opinions.
No you did not, unless of course Article 2 is tatooed in some place that is hard for you to reach. And even if you did, US jurisprudence somewhat developed since 1789, and one of the things that has been well established and confirmed by numerous precedent is the power of the President to employ the military. It is not absolute - if you have some un-tatooed places left, you can probably fit War Powers Act somewhere. After you are done with that, you may think about why the Congress required the President to merely notify them in 48 hours about something that you claim is completely illegal and unconstitutional - and then gives them 60 days to keep doing it, and then another 30 days to keep doing it. Is Congress really unaware that it all has been illegal from the start? Did you do you civil duty and tell them so they could fix this colossal blunder?
My imagination is so powerful that is reflected on TV, in major Democratic newspapers and in many speeches of Democratic politician. How stupid of me to imagine this silliness instead of using my vast powers to imagine myself a billionaire!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link