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 -
This dropped a few hours ago:
Jan. 6 Committee Refers Former President Trump for Criminal Prosecution https://archive.vn/TDlGb#selection-289.14-297.189
Jan 6 committee refers Donald Trump for criminal prosecution on four counts – as it happened
So, suppose the Biden Justice Department prosecutes. And the case is tried in DC, where the chances of getting a jury of 12 Democratic partisans is "better than average". And so they convict him on all counts. I'd say chances of a real insurrection before 2024 rise to over 10% in that case, and prospect of convincing any Trump supporter that the government (present or future) is legitimate drops to very close to zero. I don't think the republic can survive it without violence, whether immediate or in a somewhat longer term. Even a 2024 Desantis win wouldn't calm things down, unless Desantis took clear retribution (and then you have to worry about the OTHER half of the country).
Criminal prosecution of Trump on obviously political charges is entirely insane.
I've long thought that this sort of action would see state-level retributive lawfare from right-leaning partisans. Could Arizona bring state murder (or conspiracy) charges against Holder and/or Obama for their actions to supply firearms (and later, conspiracy after the fact to cover it up) in the murder of Brian Terry? Or the drone strikes on US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his underage children (assuming their last domestic state of residence have sufficient jurisdiction)?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not aware of any requirement that state courts observe a federal notion of executive privilege. The optics of removing the case to federal court to close it would also be pretty unsightly: arguing that the President can effectively engage in murder regardless of state laws sounds unpopular on the left, and indirectly hearkens back to the Trump claim that he could "shoot somebody and wouldn't lose voters."
On the other hand, maybe I overestimate the concern of the median voter for esoteric legal shenanigans. Also, the right is fairly divided on the idea of Trump at the moment and might well be willing to throw him under the bus rather than seek retribution.
This type of argument always confused me. Obama's actions were blatantly illegal and that seems like a pretty popular opinion in any left-leaning circle I've discussed politics in. You couldn't talk up Obama too much during his presidency too long without someone killing the conversation by dejectedly saying "drone strikes" (and I do mean literally the phrase "drone strikes" as a complete utterance; this happened to me multiple times). Sending every living former president to prison for life for war crimes would be overwhelmingly popular among the left.
It's probably colored by things like center-left and left media calling the Obama administration scandal free in 2017 and 2015 respectively. Keeping in mind that Anwar al-Awlaki was 2011, the wedding drone strike was 2013 and the ATF Gunwalking was uncovered in 2014.
Yeah, war crimes aren't scandals, they're just normal.
I think people complaining about Obama's stance on drone strikes started earlier. Probably because it was a new thing towards the end of Bush's presidency and Obama was a progressive darling who was pretty vague on his policies as a candidate, so I think the anti-war part of the left felt pretty betrayed that he didn't stop them immediately.
Honestly, as a member of the Left, the muted response to Biden basically shutting down the drone war and getting out of Afghanistan showed me while there are some honest brokers among the anti-war left who spent 8 years attacking Obama, but many of them are just anti-Democratic Party, not anti-war. Not even getting into the small group of contarians who acted like Trump was a peacemaker, then ignored Biden actually being the least war hawkish POTUS since probably Carter or some guy in the early 20th century.
Al-Zawahiri was drone struck in Afghanistan a full year after the withdrawal. The strike on civilians in a white corolla the month after the Kabul withdrawal is also somewhat suspect in terms of "shutting down the drone war" but close enough in time that most would let it slide. Combat operations in Iraq may have ended but they and Syria to this day still get to operate under the active hostility area rules of drone strike engagement allowing local commanders to order them rather than the stricter (but not flat denial) policy of requiring White House approval for striking outside those areas. Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and drone warfare policy?
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