site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34214 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 15, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Welp, back from the penalty box/fishing trip and I've missed the whole shitshow last week.

So let's start there: How about that preference cascade?

We all had our whacks at guessing which point was peak woke. I feel uncontroversial in saying the past month has been the drop. A couple trans school shooter, the Charlotte train snuff film and the assassination of Kirk, all in a few weeks. A real perfect storm of narrative-puncturing events. Coupled with Trump in office, the economy not being too terrible (yet?), and the completion of the right-wing media sphere, I believe this is the the political realignment so long and so far incorrectly predicted.

First off, on the nature of the conflict: We are not at war, but the list of stages between now and then is getting very short indeed. Peaceful societies have to work up to civil wars. A generation of kids have to grow up with regular violence radicalizing them and turning into a reciprocal cycle. It must grow in scale, and eventually involve the tacit support of legitimate governments at the state and local level. And both sides have to build social, legal and financial structures to support their violent wings, even if they "disavow" some of the specific actions.

But these violent exchanges happen regularly and are regularly defused. The Days of Rage lead to Reagan, and we enter a new cycle. Reagan leads to the fall of the USSR, which leads to Clinton, which leads to Waco and Ruby Ridge which leads to Oklahoma City, and it was tamped down. 9/11 redirected the narrative and the direction.

If you want my "Schelling point" for when we are actually staring down the barrel of civil war, it's that you will be able to make six figures enlisting to fight for one side or the other. The reader can judge whether that's fair and exactly where our politics are in relation, but that's how I see it.

So we're not there yet, let's talk about the filthy politics of it all!

I lived through one of these preference cascades before, on 9/11. I didn't have the context for it at the time, but I do have some perspective now. The pendulum will not be kind to either side here. The Right spent the moral capital they gained by the destruction of the twin towers on two wildly expensive wars that destabilized large parts of the Middle East and fucked up our foreign policy for two decades.....so far.

The left spent the moral capital they gained from the right doing all that plus the religious ecstasy of the First Black President on ...well, you know.

I have no faith the Right will be any "better" this time around, because politics is people and people are assholes. Especially in large groups, especially when ingroup/outgroup dynamics are making them crazy. Moral certainty is a hell of a drug. A lot of social and legal norms have been thrown into the bonfire of Donnie Jay. The tech boom has entered the Monopoly phase, and neither our politics nor our society seems to be responding well to the adjustments needed.

Both sides of any conflict will have their aggressive, radical wings. To the degree each side keeps their radicals in check, violence can be avoided. But each time a real or perceived violent attack happens, it bolsters the radicals and weakens the moderates. There is no point running around looking for intellectual consistency, because groups are not homogenous and most people are hypocrites. To the degree the center-left allowed their radical wing to run wild, or fed their violent fantasies, the center right will have that much harder a time restraining theirs.

My takeaway from this whole process, spanning the thirty years of my political consciousness, is that no ideology can resist reality forever, and being in power, in control of the narrative, drives people to resist reality. Whether that's the "democratic aspirations" of third world, seventh century revanchists or the definition of "woman".

The pendulum swings, and the only time you can slow it down is when it is on your side. If you're on the right, look at the people on the left who have spoken out at various stages of these past two decades. Remember those names. They tried, too little and too late for sure, but even so and generally at some cost.

For those on the left, look at those on the right who are holding their convictions, who are calling for peaceful (even if hypocritical/oppressive) responses, rather than in kind, with blood, this week.

If you all can't feel closer to them than you do to your own violent wing, give the radicals a call. It'll cost you six figures per man, and a lot more than that before it's over.

Both sides of any conflict will have their aggressive, radical wings. To the degree each side keeps their radicals in check, violence can be avoided. But each time a real or perceived violent attack happens, it bolsters the radicals and weakens the moderates. There is no point running around looking for intellectual consistency, because groups are not homogenous and most people are hypocrites. To the degree the center-left allowed their radical wing to run wild, or fed their violent fantasies, the center right will have that much harder a time restraining theirs.

I'm constantly struggling over this both sides fig leaf people keep throwing out there for the sake of unity. This is only accomplished because they weigh January 6th against all the Floyd riots and all the Ferguson Riots, CHAZ/CHOP, the siege of the federal courthouse, attacks on the White House so bad they had to evacuate Trump during his first term, etc. It's a farcical comparison, but they keep making it. Even assuming Jan 6th was every bit as bad as they claim, they honestly believe it makes us equal? A single day of terrifying violence for legislators versus months and months of wondering if your town would burn down, or a mob would form outside your home, for years and years?

There is no unity, and there is no both sides. Nobody is afraid of the sorts of violence that erupts simultaneously in every city as when Democrats get restive. At most they are afraid someone might get it in their head to try to take a scalp of their own. But I'd be shocked if it succeeded. Remember it took the Left 2 attempts on Trump, a home invasion on Tucker Carlson's family, sending violent mobs after Supreme Court Justices, endless credible threats against Tim Pool and Nick Fuentes, before they finally got a kill. Charlie Kirk is just the 9/11 to the 1993 WTC bombing. They've been trying this whole time in a way the right hasn't.

They aren't even bombing transition clinics! Think about that. They consider violent extremism just saying "I don't think we should transition children". People used to blow shit up they didn't agree with. Thats how thoroughly they've framed the conversation, that your speech is considered violence on par with their actual violence. The only way the left could possibly get more violent is if their paramilitary troops (Antifa, BLM, etc) had actual military hardware instead of black masks and molotovs. Think about how much room the right has to get more violent before you start pulling "both sides" on me.

There is no unity, and there is no both sides.

Well, the idea that there are just two "sides" is also foolish. The conflict and lack of unity is real, and for that reason suggests a multiplicity of sides. You expect fractious human beings to just line up within one of these sides, out of just two sides? What are you assuming here, kumbaya unity?

A single day of terrifying violence for legislators versus months and months of wondering if your town would burn down, or a mob would form outside your home, for years and years?

I live in a purple city directly bordering Portland, with its 100+ days of riots. There was even a Proud Boys vs Antifa fracas in a park 5 minutes from my house that made the national news. Yet, I never for one second worried about my town burning down or a mob forming outside my house. These "mostly peaceful protests" were still fairly isolated to very specific small urban areas. I guess if you were unlucky enough to live next door to a police precinct, you'd have reason to fear those things, but there has not been cause, IMO, for any general panic over these things, even near the heart of the problems.

I was living in a ground-floor apartment in a nice/revitalized downtown area during 2020, and it was scary enough for a couple of days that I left town and stayed with a friend out in the suburbs. Windows were boarded up with desperate "black lives matter" messages scrawled on them to dissuade looters. Masked men dressed in black and carrying weapons were running around causing mayhem. It legit felt like law and order had simply collapsed around me. I can't even imagine how terrifying it must have been for my neighbors with young children.

I didn’t worry about a mob getting my house, quiet. But I (quite irritatingly for tax reasons) live at the far edge of sprawling city limits, and I hated getting texts from the mayor’s emergency alert regarding ‘citywide’ curfews (aimed at the greater downtown) that the threats were real and while not that close, closer than I’ve ever experienced. Watching enjoyable shops and restaurants be wrecked, likewise. Watching the ones that posted “minority-owned” signs in their windows and on Instagram being laughed at for thinking it made a difference (the mockers were right; it made no difference), likewise.

Minneapolis is 4 or 5 times further away than Washington but had far more direct impact on my life.

In addition to Jan 6, there was also the Tiki Torch thing way back when, which spooked people because it was white-identitarian but otherwise resembled a leftist protest.

I still maintain that a lot of this started when protesting became a social scene, a thing to do like going to concerts and shows, but with an incentive to one-up each other performatively and let mob mentality take over.

I didn't say anything about the relative grievances, that quote is merely descriptive of the structure.

If you want my position on Jan 6, it was barely a riot, certainly not an "insurrection". My father and brother were there, just not on the side where people went into the buildings. The only person to be killed was an unarmed middle-aged woman shot by security, the rest of the violence was very minor for a riot. Everyone involved even tangentially was punished all out of proportion to the offense. There's no equivalence to my mind between that and the regular drumbeat of destructive and violent riots the Left puts on, defends and refuses to punish.

You're illustrating my point, which is that it's hard for anyone who wants to argue the Right should not engage in mass political violence to make their case without running into the past fifty years of lefty activism, terrorism and assassination.

the rest of the violence was very minor for a riot.

Tell that to the 140+ cops who got injured https://www.policemag.com/patrol/news/15310988/140-officers-were-injured-in-capitol-riot-officials-say

Including

One officer has two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs and another was stabbed with a metal fence stake

One was beaten and tased until he passed out and another was attacking cops with a metal whip

After being pulled from the line of officers, Fanone was then beaten by rioters during one of the most brutal assaults on police protecting the Capitol that day. He was tased in the neck and eventually lost consciousness during the attack, where he had begged rioters for his life and told them he had children.

...

Andrew Taake of Texas pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers with bear spray and a "metal whip" on Jan. 6 and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Another threw a bomb at a group of cops.

There was also multiple pipe bombs planted by an unfound individual yet

One grabbed an officer by the back of their vest, pulled them down stairs and then beat them with a metal pole

Another hit cops with a baton he brought, and threw a speaker box at them

These are just a portion of the violence by Jan 6th protestors. And the property damage too, windows were smashed, offices were trashed and damaged and things were stolen off desks.

Total cost estimated around 2.7 billion dollars

Now of course, these criminals are just a small portion of the Jan 6th protest. There were tens of thousands of people there, many of whom were completely peaceful and not engaged in destructive behavior. Those people do not deserve blame for the actions of criminals just for existing in the same place together. Like members of any loosely formed group, people should be held individually responsible.

But that doesn't mean the criminals don't exist either. They do, and they were very violent and destructive. Both can be true, criminals exist and other protestors who didn't do crime aren't responsible for it.

I watched all of the live streams as this unfolded.

I’m so confused because none of the violence referenced in your links was at all observable on any of the livestreams.

The only actual violence, that increased past the point of pushing and shoving - fisty cuffs, if you will - was that of Ashleigh Babbit who was shot as she tried to climb through a barricaded door.

It almost seems to have appeared post-hoc. Do you have any video evidence of any of this? It seems near certain that there would have been given how much was filmed.

Total estimated cost at 2.7billion… god someone did well out of this. From what I saw, I would have guessed several hundred thousand - a few million at most.

Yeah I always look through these links for videos, but it seems to be entirely relayed stories or things that people eventually had to plead guilty to in order to get lighter sentences in the zealous over-prosecutions.

And then you get a game of telephone, where NBC news writes "an explosive device" that made a loud noise and apparently caused psychological trauma because some officers anticipated it might have otherwise been a dangerous grenade, in an article where they also mention (at the bottom of the article) the second worst explosive as "lit what appeared to be a firecracker, but it did not explode". And then here it's upgraded to simply "a bomb".

I’m so confused because none of the violence referenced in your links was at all observable on any of the livestreams.

A lot of it is done in the messier busier crowds where seeing what's going on is difficult. But yes we have videos like this and this.

Interesting, we also have video of a current DOJ official yelling to kill the cops

It almost seems to have appeared post-hoc. Do you have any video evidence of any of this? It seems near certain that there would have been given how much was filmed.

So yes we do, and if you want more you can just Google for the rest. Videos + police testimony makes for a strong case, cops don't generally lie about being attacked.

Thanks for sending - I hadn’t seen the second video, although I had seen the first - which is what I initially described as fisty cuffs - people fighting to get through the barricades but then the violence disappearing once through.

It’s definitely a dishonest comparison from you to compare the left’s rioting with the right’s, but fair to suggest that it should still nonetheless be disavowed as it definitely crossed a serious line.

It’s definitely a dishonest comparison from you to compare the left’s rioting with the right’s, but fair to suggest that it should still nonetheless be disavowed as it definitely crossed a serious line.

How exactly is it dishonest? Assaulting police is a crime, whether you're right or left wing.

That $2.7billion includes a lot of things like costs spent increasing new security.

This amount reflects, among other things, damage to the Capitol building and grounds, estimated costs borne by the Capitol Police, the District of Columbia, and federal agencies, and estimated costs to address security needs and investigations as described in budget and funding requests, appropriations, agency estimates, and other publicly available information.

I remember seeing photo albums of the damage in the aftermath and it totaled up to like, 4 maybe 5 broken windows. Shared by a leftwinger, FWIW, though I suppose it could have just been laziness or incompetence.

That would make it what, 147th on the list of most violent/destructive protests in the past twenty years? Like I said, very minor.

That would make it what, 147th on the list of most violent/destructive protests in the past twenty years? Like I said, very minor.

If has about a 1 in 400 cop injury ratio seems pretty high, especially when it's significantly higher than even BLM (something else often called violent) and their cop injury ratio.

I agree with you, most participants are still peaceful. Most of any group are peaceful. And all those peaceful individuals deserve to be judged for their peace, not the behavior of criminal scum.

But relatively, yeah it was pretty high in the rate of criminal scum.

Great, make your worst-case scenario, let's take it all as gospel FTSOA.

The right has several thousand more fatalities and several trillion more dollars in damage to do before the ledger of riots is balanced in just my lifetime.

J6 was a minor riot that killed no one, and during which police shot and killed an unarmed middle-aged woman. There's no math that makes this the equivalent of even one weekend of BLM, much less the entirety.

J6 was a minor riot that killed no one, and during which police shot and killed an unarmed middle-aged woman. There's no math that makes this the equivalent of even one weekend of BLM, much less the entirety.

Is the only violence that matters to you death? Beating up a cop is still wrong, even if you don't kill them.

You're being obtuse. Nonfatal violence is less serious than fatal violence. It wasn't nonviolent, there were felonies committed, and plenty of people should have gone to jail over it. None of that makes it as bad as six months of terror, murder, secession, looting and arson.

More comments

The Jan 6 vs. BLM riots or whathaveyou is not an apples to apples comparison.

I had a BLM march a block from my house and damage done within a mile.

But BLM did not attempt to thwart the constitutional process of a presidential election.

Just focusing on "how much violence was there" or "what was the material impact" doesn't capture the badness of Jan 6 relative to more routine bouts of violence.

I agree that in general leftwing violence gets downplayed and rightwing violence is overhyped in polite society, but Jan 6 was quite bad as a political issue and could have been a lot worse if things had gone slightly differently.

Imagine if CHAZ/CHOP and Jan 6 switched political polarities and what would be said about them by the relevant sides. Obviously the Left would demonize CHAZ/CHOP and at least make excuses for Jan 6 being an attempt to oppose a very bad president. What would the Right do?

I'm constantly struggling over this both sides fig leaf people keep throwing out there for the sake of unity... It's a farcical comparison, but they keep making it.

Always has been. The Che posters and shirts, the hammer and sickle posters and shirts, well that's "just a phase." Approximately nobody makes swastika posters or Goering shirts (if he weren't, ya know, a Nazi, the Nuremburg picture would make a fine meme), they're definitely not sold at university-sanctioned and hosted poster sales, and if they did exist they certainly wouldn't be treated like it's "just a phase." Anti-black racism, unforgiveable; anti-white racism, doesn't even exist, definitionally impossible. No right-wing terrorist has ever become a university professor or gotten an honorary degree from Cambridge. Et cetera and so forth.

The thing has, somebody has to be the better person if they want to keep a country. That sucks, it's difficult, it's no fun, it's unfair, illiberal, quite often you'll feel like a chump. If you want there to be any chance of somebody on the other side listening, you have to carefully couch your point, hem and haw both-sides, avoid any invisible fence collars (inverse dogwhistles, if you prefer to skip the article; only the metaphor is relevant to my point). Otherwise you trip their trigger and they shut down.

It sucks and I'm bad at it. Absolutely terrible at avoiding inverse dogwhistles. But I still believe trying is better than the alternative.

I've seen a different type of inverse dog whistle proposed before, one with some distinct similarities to this but also distinct differences. It was a "duck call", a meme intended to seem innocuous to your in-group but to provoke your out-group to reveal and beclown themselves. A rather pernicious type of duck call is a knowingly false argument that your in-group is much less likely to know or care is false; this type of duck call is also a loyalty test, in that it dares people who are otherwise on your side but are aware of your "mistake" to defy you.

Would you care to provide some current examples? I don't quite understand how these are supposed to be different from scissor statements.

The premise of scissor statements assumes, usually incorrectly, that the battle lines weren't already drawn before the scissor statement revealed them. Duck calls are more shibboleths deployed in an ongoing conflict, taunts that only the enemy can hear, taunts that will tempt them to cross the battle lines and say "alright, listen here, mister". Most supposed dogwhistles are at best duck calls, as they're supposedly hidden right-wing messages that mostly left-wingers care about. "It’s okay to be white" is a classic duck call of a more honorable type, as is the okay sign, or going back further, something like Black Lives Matter.

Here's a recent example of the dishonest kind of duck call. A lot of the "evidence" getting passed around that Kirk's assassin was a Groyper is very silly if you're familiar with anything being discussed. To properly refute it, though, you need to demonstrate some familarity with Groypers, and this won't make you more persuasive to people who want to believe it; it'll simply give them occasion to sneer at you for being familiar with the topic of discussion. The original example I saw referred to as a duck call was actually directly parallel to this but with the opposite political valence.

  • gender pay gap means society discriminates against women
  • trans women feeling happier after taking estrogen means they really were trans
  • higher gun violence rate in america is due to america’s high per-capita gun ownership

A whole world of social strategies waiting to be named! Thank you, this is also an interesting one.

The thing has, somebody has to be the better person if they want to keep a country.

Who's "being the better person" and who's "keeping a country?" I don't think they are the same group.

The riot on Jan 6 was a distraction, a representation of the real danger, which was the Eastman plan to attempt to present an alternate slate of electors and undo the results of the election.

This was way more dangerous than you’re letting on. If it had succeeded, then essentially any amount of violence from the left would have been justified, because the formal process of the election was undermined.

The rioters, sure, they were not as damaging. But seriously wargame the next moves in America if that plan worked. It’s not pretty.

because the formal process of the election was undermined.

the process outlined in the US Constitution is the formal process of how the winner is determined

the formal process of the election was undermined when laws were ignored, processes were illegally changed, legal requirements like signature checks were undermined or simply ignored, mass ballots were sent out, observers were removed, counting was done in secret, ballots were created, records were purposefully destroyed, even the lamest "time-out guys" court orders were ignored, etc., etc.

But seriously wargame the next moves in America if that plan worked. It’s not pretty.

could you describe it to us?

Sure.

Jan 6, a group of protesters gathers around the Capitol, some breaking in. They are under the impression they are demanding a recount and an investigation into fraud. Inside, a group of Trump loyalists inform the frightened Congressmen that they are demanding a corrected record, and there is no telling what they might do. A set of unfamiliar people, claiming to be electors, arrive and announce an alternative slate for Trump. Dissent is quashed by law enforcement, which says the situation is “dangerous” and that loud debate may draw attention. Pence walks in, and announces that in accordance with the text of the Constitution, he can verify electors. He verifies the new one. The people present do not know what to do, and do not oppose this move. Pence declares Trump as the continuing President.

Jan 7. News of this event comes out. America is immediately divided. Trump claims that he is President. Biden claims he won the election, and is now the president. Congressional Democrats move to invalidate the Jan 6 decision. Trump loyalists in Congress oppose the move strongly. Most Republicans aren’t sure what to do, and try to delay. A few days later, the first protests are organized and start. After nightfall they quickly descend into riots. MAGA counterprotests immediately follow. Mayors attempt to control the worst of it with riot police, but they increasingly struggle to control the crowds and opt to let the two sides have it out. News channels blast opposing viewpoints, and one-up each other in extreme language. Despite all this, things are eerily silent, and nothing really changes leading up to inauguration.

Jan 20. Trump arranges an inauguration in Washington DC. He deploys the National Guard around it. Biden, citing concerns for safety, withdraws to NYC and holds his inauguration there. Congressional Democrats go with him.

Jan 21. Biden, as President, orders the National Guard to defend him as he moves into the White House and displaces the pretender. Trump countermands that order. Both demand that the other be arrested. Some Guardsmen agree to support each side, and the civil war begins. What happens next depends on chance and individual conscience and is beyond predicting.

I hope I’ve made my point. The natural result of the plot was two people declaring their formal status as President at the same time. The moment one of them tries to exercise his executive authority you have a civil war. This is not particularly imaginative; this is what happens in history, over and over again, whenever you have a succession crisis that isn’t nipped in the bud. In reality, Trump backed down and the crisis ended. That was lucky. We were not guaranteed luck.

Thank you for typing that out.

I could have written the same thing about "wargaming" a stolen election from the opposition's perspective. Except we know that didn't happen, and I highly doubt it would have been any different had Pence refused to accept the electors from the states which cannot verify the results of their elections. The alternative slate of electors are not "unfamiliar people" anymore than the state-certified slate of electors are "unfamiliar people." The alternative slate were chosen due to how the process must play out given the outlined Constitutional process and deadlines. This has been done many times throughout US history. Trump's plan wasn't to simply accept the alternative slate of electors, it was to refuse to count the electors from some states and demand a debate and/or inquiry and if this failed to produce the required number of electoral college electors then the election would be thrown to the House, something which as been done multiple times in US history.

Why do you think the same comment would be wrong to have been written from the other perspective here? Eastman's plan wasn't to "undo the results of the election," it was contesting the results of the election.

The moment one of them tries to exercise his executive authority you have a civil war.

Not really. Much like each string of events you wargamed, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. At each of these stages, the escalation can fail for a variety of reasons, much like Trump simply stopping and going home to Florida.

Whether this was more dangerous than pushing the COVID hysteria, more dangerous than race riots and burning parts of cities down, more dangerous than state executives unilaterally and illegally changing election rules, so that it culminated in stealing an election isn't obvious to me. Much like you believe Democrats are justified in using whatever violence to stop it, the same could be said at the time for those who watched as an election was stolen from them. Otherwise, the narrative means one side always loses which is eventually untenable and we're seeing some of that now.

The alternative slate of electors are not "unfamiliar people" anymore than the state-certified slate of electors are "unfamiliar people."

The description here is meant to evoke a plausible description of how the coup would be executed without being disrupted in the moment. In reality, it was disrupted in the moment, so explaining experientially what it would be like for the Congressmen on the ground matters. It’s not a contrast between this elector and that fake elector.

This has been done many times throughout US history. Trump's plan wasn't to simply accept the alternative slate of electors, it was to refuse to count the electors from some states and demand a debate and/or inquiry and if this failed to produce the required number of electoral college electors then the election would be thrown to the House, something which as been done multiple times in US history.

I think, in order for this statement to be supportable, you need two detailed examples. Then we can argue whether this was or was not comparable. But as it stands this is a bare assertion.

Why do you think the same comment would be wrong to have been written from the other perspective here? Eastman's plan wasn't to "undo the results of the election," it was contesting the results of the election.

Contrast the Bush-Gore kerfuffle. Immediately after the election, Florida law and Gore demanded a recount, which was immediately performed. Gore contested that result to the Supreme Court, which was decided in December. By the time that electoral certification rolled around the affair had been decided. Trump also submitted lawsuits, but these were rejected quite early. The Supreme Court was not willing to listen to him. So, by the time Jan 6 came about, the affair had been decided.

What Eastman proposed to do was not a method of contesting results. The results were already contested, and contesting them had failed. He was proposing to replace the results.

The analogy here would be if Gore had tried to declare that he was actually President and that the Supreme Court case was decided unjustly. Could you explain, without reference to facts of the election (because facts are the subject being contested in court here, and Gore and Trump lost in court), on a procedural basis, why Gore’s hypothetical rejection here would be invalid while Trump’s would be valid? Or if both are valid, what are the necessary and just steps that would then be taken to fix things and get a President in the two weeks leading up to the inauguration? Or do we not get a new President at all?

Not really. Much like each string of events you wargamed, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. At each of these stages, the escalation can fail for a variety of reasons, much like Trump simply stopping and going home to Florida.

Absolutely true. I’m assuming that a successful coup on Jan 6 emboldens Trump and makes him fear for his safety if he tries getting off the metaphorical tiger. If he seriously attempts to hold onto power, however, it’s extremely doubtful to me that Biden just accepts it (because this legitimizes every future attempt in the same vein) and then you wind up with men with guns trying to decide which authority to listen to. The nice version of this is that they all pick one side or the other, and the nasty version is that they split roughly down the middle.

Notably, Harris did not even attempt to contest the 2024 election, and most of the same “election stealing” was in place from the last time. With all due respect, I don’t have much patience for the claim that the election was stolen. It is extraordinarily shady and motivated reasoning. I understand that the event must have been very upsetting, but the truth has higher standards. So forgive me for not really engaging with that half of your post. I just don’t see anything there to talk about.

The elections in 1800 and 1826 were decided by the House. For discussion about alternative electors, you can look at the 1960 Hawaii slate of alternative electors which were accepted by VP Nixon over the certified electors. In so far as a VP decided whether to count votes, Thomas Jefferson decided to open and count the electoral votes from Georgia despite them being obviously fraudulent thus awarding himself the presidency (well, after the House determined Jefferson should be President after Aaron Burr attempted to take it for himself given both received the same number of votes).

For a detailed discussion of the VP exercising the power to reject or pick elector slates, here is a response to a criticism by John Eastman which lists historical examples as well as many law review articles which discuss the topic and also clarifies exactly what Eastman's plan and advice was about what was to happen in Jan 6. Calling this plan "a coup," to be frank, is ridiculous.

Contrast the Bush-Gore kerfuffle.

Trump filed election contests well within the legal deadlines. These election contests were not "rejected quite early," with 6 of 7 contests still pending by the date of the safe-harbor elector slate certification in December. In Georgia, the court flatly refused to put the state required hearing and processes onto the court docket which resulted in an appeal, an order to do force them to do that, and then the trial court simply refusing to do it and then declaring the contest moot after Jan. 6.

Gores theory was much more limited than Trumps. Gore requested hand-recounts in only 6 or so counties and he hoped those election offices would find the ballots he needed. And thus those counties were indeed finding those ballots until GOP protesters/lawyers/rioters broke into their Broward County office and stopped them from making up ballots. It was this "recount" effort which was stopped.

What Eastman proposed to do was not a method of contesting results. The results were already contested, and contesting them had failed. He was proposing to replace the results.

No, there are multiple levels to contesting election results at the state and federal level. The winner of an the presidential election is determined by the process outlined in the US Constitution. By the date which electors were required to be certified, 6 or 7 election contests were still pending. Holding otherwise would mean states are required to abide by the illegal or unconstitutional election results of other states and have no way of contesting this, especially post-Texas v Pennsylvania where the SCOTUS laughably claimed a state doesn't have a judiciable interest in the outcome of an election.

Which was foreseen and why there is specific language in the US Constitution, a short document, outlining a process in the case of contest election.

Could you explain, without reference to facts of the election (because facts are the subject being contested in court here, and Gore and Trump lost in court), on a procedural basis, why Gore’s hypothetical rejection here would be invalid while Trump’s would be valid? Or if both are valid, what are the necessary and just steps that would then be taken to fix things and get a President in the two weeks leading up to the inauguration? Or do we not get a new President at all?

Gore didn't contest the electoral college vote. He could have. If he had and refused to count votes from Florida which would have resulted in neither candidate having the required majority electoral college votes, the election would be decided by state delegation from the House, as outlined in the US Constitution specifically to be a back-stop and ensure a winner would be determined during a contested election situation. Alternatively, the Congress could have set-up a commission to determine which votes they would count and for whom like they did in 1876. Alternatively, he could have counted an alternative elector slate and attempted to declare himself winner and then the joint-session would have decided what to do.

Harris did not even attempt to contest the 2024 election, and most of the same “election stealing” was in place from the last time. With all due respect, I don’t have much patience for the claim that the election was stolen. It is extraordinarily shady and motivated reasoning.

No. Most (I think all) states which were in dispute in 2020 either lost court battles over their illegal election process or made substantive changes to their laws which made the 2024 election better than the 2020 one. Also, there is a difference in kind between an election decided by 40,000 ballots in 3 states and millions of ballots across 8 or 9 states including the popular vote by approximately 2.5m ballots.

I've found people defending the 2020 election to be engaged in shady and motivated reasoning which essentially assumes the outcome, much like you do here and demanding a standard they know full well is impossible to meet even under the assumption substantial fraud took place. Additionally, they don't particularly care nor do they particularly have the knowledge about it anyway which makes dialogue about it mostly unproductive.

Under a defensible standard for election contests, i.e., making a showing that there are likely enough ballots in dispute which is higher than the difference in a race - interestingly enough the standard used by American courts everywhere except in 2020 where the standard was ignored or avoided, the 2020 election was stolen in the sense that it is impossible to truly determine the winner of the election. If you have interest, here is a relatively short article about the issue.

this always present a funny dichotomy to me, where the left focuses on Jan 6 when certifying an alternate slate of electors was much more concerning

And the right focused on weird conspiracies around voting machines instead of the actual confessed conspiracy to delay vaccine trial results to prevent Trump from winning, at the cost of a 9/11 or 3 of elderly Americans come the next COVID wave.

"The left successfully manipulated the information environment such that Americans voted the wrong way" is not grounds for overturning an election. As a matter of law and public opinion, the appropriate response would be "Sucks to suck. Git gud."

The weird decision was going after the voting machines first rather than running with the plausible lies about mass postal vote fraud from day one. In general, until Eastman takes over from Giuliani and Sidney Powell in early December, Trump's effort to overturn the election was pretty shambolic - particularly given that it had clearly been pre-planned.

In normal times or if law remotely mattered, Giuliani's election contests would have stopped the counting and mixing of ballots and would have been successful in multiple states, definitely in Georgia. Giuliani wasn't the one pushing voting machines and was actually one of the people telling Trump to ghost Sideny Powell pretty early on.

No decision was made to focus on machines and machines weren't the focus of the campaign. Even a slight glance at any of the filed election contests should cure you of that claim, especially attempting to claim it was "clearly pre-planned."

The machine claims focus was something which developed post-hoc for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it was the one the media could pick up because its proponents, e.g., Sidney Powell, were increasingly deranged and their at least some of their claims were terrible and it could easily be made into a nonsense caricature. The areas which would have borne more fruit, e.g., signature checks and voter mail fraud, were meeting significant resistance in what was ostensibly Trump's own side.

The entirety of the GOP election game was unserious and clownish for various reasons, but that's hardly new. Any lawyer even remotely connected to GOP politics were getting many phone calls trying to scramble people into areas which should have already had pre-planned contests ready to go. Even among GOP "lawyers," few were willing to work for the Trump campaign in 2020 for a variety of reasons.

Although Giuliani was responsible for Four Seasons Total Landscaping, which was the most visibly shambolic moment of the whole affair.

okay, so then what?

nothing little in your post is remotely accurate with respect to the 2020 post-election campaign; it's just post-hoc narrative formation cherry picking anecdotes you read in friendly media

claiming the machines fraud narrative was "pre-planned" or "the weird decision was going after voting machines first" is just entirely detached from reality

"The left successfully manipulated the information environment such that Americans voted the wrong way" is not grounds for overturning an election.

Even if they used government force to do so?

Legally, definitely not. Politically, I don't think that type of attack has ever worked to undermine the legitimacy of an election anywhere, and it has been tried a lot.

The US is one of the few countries where there is no legal process to overturn an election on grounds other than the casting and counting of the votes. But in countries where there are other grounds to overturn an election, they look like "The candidate or his designated campaign team committed one of a short list of specified offences" - most commonly exceeding spending limits or knowingly accepting illegal foreign assistance. The idea of overturning an election based on some third party being biased in a way which it is not itself illegal is batshit - particularly if it is the incumbent claiming his own government was biased against him. But in any case using a legal technicality to overturn an election makes you look like a sore loser and typically causes you to lose the rerun election in a landslide.

Legally, definitely not. Politically, I don't think that type of attack has ever worked to undermine the legitimacy of an election anywhere, and it has been tried a lot.

In Romania, it was enough that a non-incumbent had a TikTok account. But it should be no surprise that the same government that "manipulated the information environment" would not accept that this invalidated an election.

As I said, legal processes to invalidate elections involve specific election offences committed by the candidate or campaign. In the case of Georgescu, it was (assuming that the documents released by the government were genuine) an absolutely blatant campaign finance violation - a million euros was spent on paid promotion of the TikTok account while Georgescu was claiming to have received zero campaign donations.

Yeah, I think it’s mostly about what makes for better TV. A riot from people who you can allege are trying to hang the Speaker is immediate, visceral, you don’t need to know much to enjoy it. A plan to file paperwork wrong, deliberately, is comparatively lame. Could paperwork be that important?

It reminds me of that scene from the old Star Wars movie where everyone is voting away their rights in favor of an emperor. Or, if you prefer, the actual event I think it was based on, which was really two events: the selection of Marshal Petain as the head of an interim French government to negotiate capitulation with Hitler, and the subsequent vote to give him unlimited constitutional powers. The first was rather popular, as everyone thought well of Petain, and the second was forced through with the assistance of ruffians shouting down from the galleries and thuggish ministers physically blocking a floor debate. George Lucas preferred the first scene over the second, for some reason. Really makes you think, huh.

Or, if you prefer, the actual event I think it was based on, which was really two events: the selection of Marshal Petain as the head of an interim French government to negotiate capitulation with Hitler, and the subsequent vote to give him unlimited constitutional powers.

That particular parallel seems week given that the defining feature of the selection of Petain was that it happened to a country that had just lost a war and everyone knew that the new government was being chosen to capitulate to Hitler.

The more obvious parallel is the fall of the Roman Republic (the terminology of Republic/Empire/Senate is obviously taken from Rome). The obvious parallel to the specific scene where liberty dies to thunderous applause is Julius Caesar being declared dictator for life by the Senate. The consensus among blogging classicists seems to be that Palpatine's rise to power looks more like Augustus than Caesar, but Augustus didn't start taking on Imperial airs and graces until he had already held absolute power for several years, so there was no grand scene in the Senate marking the formal transition from Republic to Empire. There are also the inevitable parallels to the Reichstag passing the Enabling Law in 1933 - in particular the idea that the Empire is an assumption of emergency power to deal with an ongoing emergency (rather than a post-civil was assumption of absolute authority to restore peace, order and good government as was the case for both Romans).

Wikipedia's article on Palpatine gives a long list of historical dictators he might be modelled on, but clicking the links to sources shows that George Lucas was probably thinking of a combination of Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler.

a country that had just lost a war

This is the excuse that the defeatists gave in the moment, but in fact they had not lost the war, and de Gaulle went on to win it. Had he the advantage of the French fleet and a loyal army evacuated to North Africa (which the Germans could not touch, in accordance with what their generals were writing at the time and in retrospect), one can only imagine the process being smoother. The armistice question was also up in the air for longer than you suggest.

George Lucas was probably thinking of a combination of Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler.

None of these were known as kindly old men in whom the country could trust in trying times and who was willing and eagerly voted excessive powers by a legislative body feeling lost and ineffective, which is Lucas’ text here. The first (whichever you choose) won a civil war and set terms. The second leveraged a generalcy into a coup. The third used a popular movement of angry young men to quell opposition and gain legitimacy. None were voted in by a deceived parliament thinking it was a jolly good thing too. On the other hand, Petain is actually a good parallel to the literal text. I suggest the Wikipedia analysis, insofar as it ignores the words, is misguided.

de Gaulle went on to win it

Lol Gaullist propaganda. The British, Americans and Soviets won it and the British and Americans graciously allowed de Gaulle to take some of the credit in order to ensure an anti-communist government in post-war France.

I wasn't relying on the wiki article for analysis - I was using it for links to interviews with George Lucas. The claim that Lucas was inspired by those three comes from his own words. My personal view is that the dominant historical inspiration for the Galactic Republic and early Empire is Rome, including via Isaac Asimov (Coruscant is obviously Trantor, and Asimov was always explicit that his Galactic Empire was inspired by Rome).

eagerly voted excessive powers by a legislative body feeling lost and ineffective

A fairly accurate description of how Augustus and Napoleon spun the grants of extreme power post-coup, even if it isn't what actually happened. As with Augustus, Caesar and Napoleon (Hitler is a grey area) the Senate meeting we see on screen was a stage-managed ratification of a coup that had already happened. And there is no vote on-screen, and canon material consistently describes the declaration of the Empire as a proclamation, not the result of a vote.

I suggest the Wikipedia analysis, insofar as it ignores the words, is misguided.

I wasn't there, but I don't think Petain was installed "to thunderous applause" given the miserable circumstances.

Lol Gaullist propaganda. The British, Americans and Soviets won it and the British and Americans graciously allowed de Gaulle to take some of the credit in order to ensure an anti-communist government in post-war France.

What do you mean? He organized military and paramilitary resistance to German forces and successfully negotiated with key allies to achieve his main war goals. What you’re expressing here is an astonishingly naive view on war: that it only “counts” if it’s all on the backs of your own troops. The reality of war is that the winner wins. Nothing else matters, although losers love to find excuses. Napoleon is a great example of a loser here - spent a lot of time making excuses in his last exile. Weygand too, from the safety of a country that other men liberated. I recommend against taking the perspective of losers.

And there is no vote on-screen, and canon material consistently describes the declaration of the Empire as a proclamation, not the result of a vote.

I don’t remember that detail from the film, but it has been many years. If that’s so, it’s so, and the comparison to Caesar would be more appropriate. (I’d hold that Napoleon in particular is a bad comparison. The representatives were deliberating over whether to declare him an outlaw when he came back with men with guns and dispersed them permanently.)

Antifa has the capability to rack up a much higher body count than they currently do without improving their weapons.

They're very strategic in their use of violence for PR reasons. They're very aware of how much cover the media will run for them and trying not to step outside of that while still scaring and provoking their enemies. They know full well that their violence will be minimized while the violence of those they provoke will be exaggerated, and they use that asymmetry to control the narrative.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats