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 -
Related to down-thread discussion, "Trump nominee Paul Ingrassia withdraws after rare Republican pushback over text messages" (Reuters)
What is the situation with Senate confirmation whipping? There's been very little pushback from the Senate, but also the WH nominates low quality appointees without verifying the Senate will approve them.
Related to that, does Trump have a clear strategy for managing the caucus, in general? He commuted George Santos's sentence, for the stated reason that Santos always voted Republican, which is a pretty strong signal, but is he doing anything to prove his reliability to non-criminal members of the party?
Sink or swim? If or when legislators spit them back up, then an additional decision can be made whether to cram the nominee down their throat.
Trump was charmed by his saucy, sassy gumption and fashionable friends. Seriously, the guy could be cast as The Gay Friend in any Hollywood romcom ever made. Straight out of Sex in the City.
He showed initiative, he showed gumption. What's forgiveness for a little fraud? Another theory: Santos was doing very poorly in prison, or presented himself as such, and Trump took pity on him after an advocate got the president's ear. Santos is reprehensible to me and I wouldn't believe a lick of what he says, but mercy can be a demonstration of power.
The biggest travesty is that Santos is not in congress right now. He had what it takes to win a quite blue district, and was loyal to the party line. Throw him in jail later if needed, but he should have been given the chance to serve.
He’s certainly the elected official his constituents (and the country writ large) deserves, I’ll give him that much.
More options
Context Copy link
Being a shameless grifter and con-artist running against someone who still doesn't have a wikipedia page? Do you think he would have won re-election, if only the House hadn't expelled him?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have a hard time accepting 7 years as a just sentence for the level of fraud here. There are very serious violent crimes that ruin lives that don’t get that amount of time. There are some murders that don’t get that amount of time.
The US Federal Sentencing Guidelines calculate the sentence for economic crimes fairly robotically based on the total dollar amount lost by all the victims. This means that rich people stealing from other rich people are sentenced more harshly than the subjective seriousness of the crime would suggest, or than they would be in most other jurisdictions (including US state courts).
More options
Context Copy link
That's a problem with the level of punishment given to the murders.
That’s definitely a good point, and if America was a country where most rapists and murderers got the death penalty I would have a much easier time accepting Santos’s sentence. But it isn’t, and so I have a hard time seeing him in prison for that long just because he had the temerity to say the quiet part out loud: that most congressmen are grifting con artists.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
7 years sounds pretty reasonable for the amount of fraud he did. And his sucky, awful, scammy demeanor makes him very unsympathetic. He embezzled and stole hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think most of his sentence is reasonable based on the COVID / PPP unemployment fraud alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santos#Federal_prosecution
That seems to be more of an issue with under punishing murder than anything else.
More options
Context Copy link
The maximum if I recall which is the nastier end of the example making stick. We don't jail politicians for lying to voters, but he did stick to denial and defiance until there there was nothing left. He probably would have gotten a softer touch had he bowed out with any amount of grace or contrition. In the end he serves 4 or 5 months? If he goes away forever and moves on it seems fine. I don't know if he has that in him.
The guy called someone else a RINO! Absolute mad lad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link