site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25241 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump is calling for the arrest and trial of six Democrat lawmakers who posted a video telling the intelligence community not to follow unlawful orders,. The video claims that the current administration is threatening democracy and the constitution, and that the military "must refuse illegal orders."

Trump also apparently had another post that just said, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH."

This is the first time I have genuinely increased the probability of a real civil war breaking out, this is an absolutely terrifying escalation by both sides. While the Democrats were hinting extremely obviously that the military / intelligence community should basically pull off a coup, I also think that Trump hinting back that they should be executed is way beyond the pale.

Hopefully we're still in nothing ever happens land? I for one do not want to live through a civil war.

I'm just gonna post a transcript here because the reaction to this seems insane to me.

[Video opens with the six congresspeople (Elisa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow) identifying themselves and giving their military/intelligence backgrounds] We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. Who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this constitution. Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders [Kelly]. You can refuse illegal orders [Slotkin]. You must refuse illegal orders [Deluzio]. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up [Kelly]. Don't give up [Deluzio]. Don't give up [Crow]. Don't give up the ship [Slotkin].

Characterizing the speech above as a call for a coup or sedition seems crazy. Like, courts have held that some of the orders Trump has given the military on American soil are unlawful! That is literally a thing that is happening! Trump is, as literally as possible, giving the military illegal orders as determined by a court of law. This is not even getting into the boat strikes that I think are straightforwardly murder. "If the president tells you to do something illegal, as he has already done, you must not do it." "THIS IS TREASON!"

All of this is happening in the context of a serious battle for authority on a grand scale. Whether the troops should (that's a moral should, not a legal should) be listening to their elected president Donald Trump or U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb is precisely the issue in question. To a big chunk of the country, the legal wing of the government has vastly overstepped its remit and is engaged in constant tendentious legal warfare to undermine the elected leader of the country. They are misusing the authority that they have been given and have no moral right to use the tools that they are attempting to wield.

If you see the world in that way, what is this video saying? Firstly, this video wouldn't be made if the makers didn't think that Trump was giving illegal orders, or was about to do so. So they're not just speaking about a hypothetical, they're standing up and saying, "Either the orders you're being given now, or the orders you're going to get soon, are illegal and you should ignore them". They are not only attacking the president and by extension those who voted for him, they are deliberately attempting to usurp his power of command.

So it's more like,

"Don't listen to the president, listen to me instead." "THIS IS TREASON".

which, yes, it is.

Obviously, this depends on a particular interpretation of events and of the role of law which you don't hold, but that's the reasoning IMO.

EDIT: Not to mention that of course

We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans.

is going to raise the temperature considerably because it firmly casts Trump's voters and those who approve of his actions as being criminal, unconstitutional and unAmerican. Which is the problem that #Resist has had from the start, because this is a very dangerous place to be if you don't in fact hold majority support. It's more or less how the Right lost control twenty years ago - by framing anyone who wasn't in favour of Christian social teachings and maximally liberal economics as being unAmerican, they made a generation of voters and politicians who didn't care at all about being American on those terms.

All of this is happening in the context of a serious battle for authority on a grand scale. Whether the troops should (that's a moral should, not a legal should) be listening to their elected president Donald Trump or U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb is precisely the issue in question.

To ask this question is to answer it: Jia Cobb, until some court above her says otherwise. The President is not above and superior to the judiciary. You want to know why people say Trump wants to be king? Shit like this. Apparently Donald J. Trump is to be the sole arbiter of what the law is and what is legal and illegal and no one may gainsay him!

If you see the world in that way, what is this video saying? Firstly, this video wouldn't be made if the makers didn't think that Trump was giving illegal orders, or was about to do so. So they're not just speaking about a hypothetical, they're standing up and saying, "Either the orders you're being given now, or the orders you're going to get soon, are illegal and you should ignore them". They are not only attacking the president and by extension those who voted for him, they are deliberately attempting to usurp his power of command.

The constitution does not give the President, or any official, the power to give orders contrary to itself or to law. To the extent the President's orders are unlawful, he has no authority to give them.

Yes, that is the answer of one faction. The answer of the other faction is that they do not trust Jia Cobb and her ilk to determine what is and is not lawful and correct (and they do not always believe that those are the same thing). You can hate that people think that way, but they do in fact think that way.

If I may engage in slightly more naked culture warring, I think that the last ten years can be best modelled as a huge extended temper tantrum by the Anointed, in response to having the basis of their power and their right to wield it challenged. (By Trump in the US, by Brexit in the UK).

Taking over the legal system and the pipeline of legal trainees doesn't actually mean you get to wield the power of the law as you please in perpetuity, but instead means that people will stop taking lawyers and the law seriously. Likewise for the academy, the metropolitan police, the bastions of culture. Ultimately, the power of those things do not come from anything that's written down, they come from the coordinated agreement of many people to take them seriously. That's why England gets along fine with no written constitution. And it's also why no written constitution can survive if it sets itself too firmly against the needs and desires of the populace.

Yes, that is the answer of one faction. The answer of the other faction is that they do not trust Jia Cobb and her ilk to determine what is and is not lawful and correct (and they do not always believe that those are the same thing). You can hate that people think that way, but they do in fact think that way.

I have no doubt that people think that way. I think that way about a great many decisions of our current Supreme Court. But I think the government should obey them anyway. I thought the Supreme Court judgement striking down Biden's student loan forgiveness was not a well reason decision, but it still would have been wrong of him to say to hell with the court and do it anyway.

If you think we should only have a judiciary if the judiciary makes decisions you agree with and produces outcomes you like and when that doesn't happen we should instead have a single executive take the law and its determinations into their own hands then I think you are anti-American. You are clearly opposed to the fundamentals of the American experiment and what it means to be an American.

I have no doubt that people think that way. I think that way about a great many decisions of our current Supreme Court. But I think the government should obey them anyway. I thought the Supreme Court judgement striking down Biden's student loan forgiveness was not a well reason decision, but it still would have been wrong of him to say to hell with the court and do it anyway.

Most of the time, most people think this way. But there is a window - broader than the Overton window - that you have to stay inside, or you lose the Mandate of Heaven.

I argue that:

The judiciary must, most of the time, make decisions that people broadly agree with and produce outcomes that they broadly like. This is a fundamental and underappreciated requirement of the Rule of Law.

As America or any country grows more diverse (on many axes) it gets harder and harder to stay inside this window for the majority of people for the majority of the time, with the resulting slow-motion breakdown that we see. FWIW I genuinely don't get the impression that most Trump supporters want a single executive king: instead they want Trump or someone like him to drag the Republic back within their window and then leave it to continue ticking along as before.

If you think we should only have a judiciary if the judiciary makes decisions you agree with and produces outcomes you like and when that doesn't happen we should instead have a single executive take the law and its determinations into their own hands then I think you are anti-American. You are clearly opposed to the fundamentals of the American experiment and what it means to be an American.

FYI I'm not American if you mean that as a personal 'you'. I'm just observing what I see in Anglo countries more generally. But of course many Americans have their own ideas of what it means to be an American! I find this essay very revealing on the topic. It mentions at one point an interview with Captain Preston, a minuteman who had fought against the British.

Excerpt below:

“Captain Preston, what made you go to the Concord Fight [on 19 April 1775]?”

“What did I go for?”

“Were you oppressed by the Stamp Act?”

“I never saw any stamps, and I always understood that none were ever sold.”

“Well, what about the tea tax?”

“Tea tax, I never drank a drop of the stuff, the boys threw it all overboard.”

“But I suppose you have been reading Harrington, Sidney, and Locke about the eternal principle of liberty?”

“I never heard of these men. The only books we had were the Bible, the Catechism, Watts’ psalms and hymns and the almanacs.”

“Well, then, what was the matter?”

“Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.”[4]

Here is the central problem in American history, as liberty and freedom are essential values in American culture. Scholars have attempted to study it in many ways.

The leading approach might be called the text-and-context method. It begins with American texts on liberty and freedom and fits them into an explanatory context that is larger than America itself. Historians have discovered many different contexts by this method. They variously told us that the meaning of American liberty and freedom is to be found in the context of Greek democracy, Roman republicanism, natural rights in the middle ages, the civic humanism of the Renaissance, the theology of the Reformation, English Commonwealth tradition in the 17th century, British opposition ideology in the 18th century, the treatises of John Locke, the writings of Scottish moral philosophers, the values of the Enlightenment, and the axioms of classical liberalism.

All these approaches have added to our knowledge of liberty and freedom but none of them comes to terms with captain Preston. As he reminded us, the text-and- context method refers to books he never read, people he never knew, places he never visited, and periods that were far from his own time. [5]

FYI I'm not American if you mean that as a personal 'you'. I'm just observing what I see in Anglo countries more generally. But of course many Americans have their own ideas of what it means to be an American!

I did intend that more in royal-you kind of way, not necessarily you specifically. I appreciate the clarification.

Most of the time, more people think this way. But there is a window - broader than the Overton window - that you have to stay inside, or you lose the Mandate of Heaven.

I assert that:

The judiciary must, most of the time, make decisions that people broadly agree with and produce outcomes that they broadly like. This is a fundamental and unappreciated requirement of the Rule of Law.

Perhaps I should take a different tact. My impression, based on polling, is that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC is not just unlawful, it is also unpopular. Here is a Quinnipiac poll from August finding voters disapprove 56-41. Here is an NPR-Ipsos poll from late September showing a disapproval of 47-37 for DC that rises to 52-34 when the question is about National Guard deployment to "your local area." To the extent Trump's resistance to the judiciary is premised on having popular support over them, I do not think that is the case with this issue.

I find this essay very revealing on the topic. It mentions at one point an interview with Captain Preston, a minuteman who had fought against the British.

Thanks for the article! I'm enjoying it so far.

My impression, based on polling, is that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC is not just unlawful, it is also unpopular. Here is a Quinnipiac poll from August finding voters disapprove 56-41. Here is an NPR-Ipsos poll from late September showing a disapproval of 47-37 for DC that rises to 52-34 when the question is about National Guard deployment to "your local area."

It's unpopular in the sense of the majority not liking it - but these numbers show that there is a fairly solid base who wants it too. I don't know if we can necessarily say it's unpopular when 1/3 of the population is saying "yes please". Like, yes, it's not a democratic majority, but when has that stopped a government before?

I did intend that more in royal-you kind of way

Allowing the informal/singular you (thou) to die was unironically a huge mistake. If wonder if the French have the same problem with polite 'vous' and plural 'vous'...

[Polls]

Interesting and worthy of thought, thanks.

Thanks for the article! I'm enjoying it so far.

Good! He's one of the only really good bloggers I'm aware of, without any particular crankish tendencies.

The constitution does not give the President, or any official, the power to give orders contrary to itself or to law. To the extent the President's orders are unlawful, he has no authority to give them.

You are being overly literal to hide what's being said.

Suddenly announcing that illegal orders from the President shouldn't be followed may literally be a hypothetical claiming that to the extent the orders are unlawful they don't need to be followed. But what it actually means is "the President is giving out illegal orders now and they should be disobeyed now," even if the speech doesn't literally include the word "now".

Suddenly announcing that illegal orders from the President shouldn't be followed may literally be a hypothetical claiming that to the extent the orders are unlawful they don't need to be followed. But what it actually means is "the President is giving out illegal orders now and they should be disobeyed now," even if the speech doesn't literally include the word "now".

The quoted section is just a factual description of what is occurring, according to the branch of government charged with making that kind of determination.

The same issue applies to "it's about these specific things ruled illegal by a court" as to "it's about hypothetical illegal things": that's not how people talk. The way you'd have it, it's as if these congresspeople suddenly gave a speech where they said that there are infinitely many prime numbers. Why did they say that? Who knows, we just wanted to inform you about that. Isn't that a weird thing to suddenly speak about? Naah, they just decided to say it. And it's true, after all. Maybe tomorrow they'll explain to you how it's against the law to rob banks.

Making a statement about not having to obey illegal orders from Trump implies that Trump is giving illegal orders, that they should not be obeyed, and that you have some reason to warn people about them. Nobody thinks there's a need to warn anyone about orders that have already been ruled illegal by a court.

Gillitrut has not tried to claim that the video was hypothetical, but rather, pointed out that a judge has in fact ruled some of Trump's orders illegal. Therefore the Democrats in the video are not casting baseless aspersions, explicitly or otherwise, but reacting to already-established legal fact.

That's a big part of the problem, though, right? It's not a legal fact, it's a legal assertion. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra then by the rules of the Catholic church (AFAIK) what he says is true for all time, but that doesn't make it a fact. And indeed, many will completely ignore it because they don't think the Pope is valid (schismatics) or they don't care what Catholic rules say (all non-Catholics).

EDIT:

It's not a legal fact, it's a legal assertion.

For the avoidance of doubt, what I mean is that it's not an actual literal fact like 'the boiling point of water is 100C'. Instead it's an assertion that under the rules of the legal system is treated like a fact, but that doesn't make it literally so.

Prior to the determination by a single circuit court judge that the deployment was illegal, would it have been the role of the individual members of the national guard to evaluate the constitutional authority of the deployment and decide whether to obey orders based on their own individual evaluation? Given the overturn rate of the DC circuit courts on appeal in this administration, how confident should we be that the deployment will remain “illegal” after appeal?

Prior to the determination by a single circuit court judge that the deployment was illegal, would it have been the role of the individual members of the national guard to evaluate the constitutional authority of the deployment and decide whether to obey orders based on their own individual evaluation?

If soldiers are not empowered to push back on illegal orders before carrying them out then the prohibition on doing so is toothless.

Given the overturn rate of the DC circuit courts on appeal in this administration, how confident should we be that the deployment will remain “illegal” after appeal?

I think it's pretty good. Just about every court to consider the question has come to the same conclusion. In Oregon and California and DC and Chicago. None of them, to my knowledge, overturned by either the relevant circuit or SCOTUS.

This is stupid. I hate that a stitched-together video is what passes for an official statement. I hate that Twitter is the de facto source for partisan drama. And Libs of fucking TikTok, no less! I don’t want to watch this slop.

I wonder if elected officials could be banned from social media. Let them appear on TV or release a boring document if they want to puff up their feathers. It’d greatly improve faith in the political process. Make it take more work to bait outrage.

You’d probably just end up with a secondary industry of ghouls like LoTT laundering those official appearances into an allegedly unofficial party line. But I genuinely think our politics would be improved if seated politicians had to put a little more effort into public appearances.

I wonder if elected officials could be banned from social media.

There are a few court cases now suggesting that elected officials don't have (on their bon-personal accounts?) the right to block people on social media. I think you'd need to go fishing for a precedent that this encompasses chosing platforms that "block people" in the same ways. Which doesn't sound completely crazy: Trump blocking people on Twitter and getting Truth Social as a platform to ban people (also blocking them from sending DMs) both limit contact with public officials.

On the other hand, if you go too far in that precedent you'll block politicians from email spam filtering (I was trying to petition my elected leadership to help me save this member of Nigerian royalty!) or attending events in any access-controlled spaces.

No, I want the opposite! Everyone else should automatically block politicians. No POTUS Twitter account, no Senators chasing TikTok trends. Think of how much cringe we could avoid.

Holding office should constrain you to official channels, which should be both boring and delayed. If the leader of the free world needs to address the population, he can damn well set up a press conference.

If Congressmen weren’t allowed to broadcast their reelection propaganda like this, nothing of value would be lost.

The problem with this is that it allows politicians to be held hostage by the official communications apparatus. Have you ever watched Yes Minister? Politicians become actors whose only job is to say the lines they're given in the right order, and to take the blame when the Civil Service wishes to assign it to them.

Like it or not, Congressmen need to get reelected and are therefore dependent on comms. The only question IMO is whether you want the propaganda to at least be written (sometimes) and signed off on by the politicians themselves, or whether you want your representatives to be unable to speak except when the bureaucrats arrange and opportunity for them to do so.

To be perfectly honest, I do not think that truly boring politics is compatible with democracy. Japan tends to have boring politics but a) there's a certain amount of grassroots turmoil these days and b) Japan somewhat resembles China in that almost all important debate takes place within a single ruling party.

The only question IMO is whether you want the propaganda to at least be written (sometimes) and signed off on by the politicians themselves, or whether you want your representatives to be unable to speak except when the bureaucrats arrange and opportunity for them to do so

Presumably they could do that by going on television, releasing statements to the press, writing books, and all the other things that serious people did before social media. If you're concerned about the asymmetry with what bureaucrats get to release on the politicians-deserted social media, we can simply ban bureaucrats from using social media either - make social media a completely government-official-free zone - forbid the dissemination of official information of any kind through such platforms. An end to Bluechecks once and for all.

In theory yes, in practice I think most people do agree that there was a phase change where social media enabled populists and more fringe movements to gain the spotlight and communicate better.

I don't know the mechanism for this. Plausibly, filming a statement that won't go down well with the bureaucrats in front of all your advisors has a chilling effect compared to writing a social media post where thousands of your followers jump in to defend and support you. Also plausibly, gatekeeping is much harder to do on social media compared to official channels.

Broadly I think that both the following are consistent positions:

  • "I want politics to be more centrist and less populist/fringe, therefore I want politicians to communicate through slower and more filtered channels".
  • "I want politicians to communicate with me and appeal to me directly, without official public guardians silencing them like they used to, therefore I want politicians to continue using uncensored social media".

But I don't think it's true that going back to 90s era communications will still allow 2020s political populism. And I am broadly skeptical of people arguing that it will, because as far as I can tell most of them are arguing for switching back to the old system precisely because they don't like modern populist politics!

The question, I think, is whether social media merely removed bureaucratic gatekeepers so that a preexisting silent majority of extremists (as it were) was suddenly allowed to speak out; or whether the presence of politicians on social media contributed to a self-sustaining feedback cycle that made everyone's positions genuinely more extreme than they were before.

Under the latter theory, the outcome would indeed be "politics becomes more centrist and less populist/fringe", but that would not be because nefarious advisors are preventing the politicians from giving the base what it wants; it would be because, in the absence of the toxic social media clout-chasing incentives, the politicians and to an extent the people will genuinely come to hold more measured views because they aren't getting into stupid dick-measuring contests everyday.

Putting it into practical terms: in a world where he is forbidden to communicate in any way on Twitter or Truth Social or any similar platform, Trump is going to rant a lot less about CROOKED Democrats who are TRAITORS who should be SHOT to DEATH for TREASON. Is this because his advisors would stop him from saying what he wants to say? I don't think so. I think it simply wouldn't occur to him to tell the world half the shit he types, if he wasn't invested in chasing the algorithm like a common vlogger. Would he be betraying the wishes of the voters who put him in the White House? Again, I don't think so - at least, not in a counterfactual world where he was never the Poster President at all. I think his base would not want him to say this stuff if he hadn't gotten them hooked on their daily Two Minutes of Hate in the first place. It's a hyperstimulus like any other, and you've got to cut off the vicious cycle.

Okay, that's a consistent viewpoint. I half-agree with it, too. E.g. my opinions of Scotland became sharply more negative after being exposed to the writings of Cybernats (Scottish Nationalists online).

The flipside is that at least in the UK I think we have been building up serious problems that, prior to social media, it was simply impossible to discuss or publicise. I remember Covid, when social media was maximally locked down - the effect of that freezing wasn't that people or politicians became less extremist, it was that it was impossible to publicise any facts or opinions that ran contrary to what was convenient to the administration. That's a big blow in my mind for the 'more controlled communication leads to better and saner politics' hypothesis.

I would say I started getting worried/upset about immigration in 2013-2016 which did coincide with rhetoric ticking up but also with various life changes and pretty high levels of immigration. Likewise my opinions of feminism were worsened by extremely negative feminist rhetoric online (White Male Tears) but also by the behaviour of my actual acquintances. And so on and so on. I think it's both tbh.

Hm. Maybe we shouldn’t try to drift towards the UK.

And Japan has had its fair share of unhinged opposition.

This is just a somewhat skillfully deployed call for sedition by the people in question. Obviously it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt in court, but the implication is clear to anyone who is activated by the statements.

Its basically the Jan 6 case against Trump on steroids and I dont like it from either side, but here we are.

Maybe if they were making this appeal to the security detail outside a Trump rally. “I know that everyone here will be marching into that rally to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

There’s no route where this stupid video causes the “intelligence community” to plot a coup. At worst, you’re going to get a couple partisans refusing to do their jobs. That’s categorically not as bad as gatecrashing a session of Congress. If you don’t think Trump was culpable for that, you shouldn’t think these chucklefucks are somehow worse.

It's a bit worse than that. but to Slotkin's credit, the appeal has been artfully constructed to be maximally provocative to the target audience (military members, and to a lesser extant Trump voters) while appearing innocuous to anyone who is unfamiliar with the context of that specific phrase and it's place in early US history.

Large swathes of the intelligence community already plotted a coup. Generals have already bragged about defying lawful orders and concealing that fact. Any escalation of what we've already seen would indeed be quite crippling to our Republic. Otoh, giving a speech in DC happens all the time, and J6's outcome was a 99% outlier that can hardly even be attributed fully to Trump, as he didn't control any of the security apparatus involved in the security failures.

There’s no route where this stupid video causes the “intelligence community” to plot a coup.

You are correct! it launders legitimacy for the intelligence community and the coup they've been working hard on the last 10 years.

The crimes of the intelligence community against the Trump administration are becoming undeniable. But most liberals are completely ignorant of them. Since they experience time not according to when things actually happened, but when they hear about them. So having these senators bless the deep state with executing a coup against Trump will make everything fine and dandy in the mind of the average liberal when the crimes of the deep state finally penetrate their information bubble. The actual order of events doesn't matter, only the perceived order.

Does that mean you agree this isn’t a crime?

Surely a cause-and-effect enjoyer like yourself can recognize that this could not be incitement.

I agree, it isn't a crime.

But in a just world they would hang all the same.

There’s no route where this stupid video causes the “intelligence community” to plot a coup. At worst, you’re going to get a couple partisans refusing to do their jobs. That’s categorically not as bad as gatecrashing a session of Congress.

Employees of the United States government conspiring to suppress accurate press reports by pressuring private companies to do so, and quite likely successfully changing the result of an election, is far worse than some rioters gatecrashing a session of Congress.

successfully changing the result of an election

They didn't even successfully suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story - the failed cover-up attracted far more attention than the story would have done organically. Nor would honest reporting of the laptop have changed the result of the election - if it had been reported honestly the story would have broken in the summer, and it would have become clear that it was basically a nothingburger ("Hunter Biden is a corrupt failson" was already priced in after the Burisma story and the first Trump impeachment) well before polling day.

"We might have won if an October surprise based on a strategically timed leak of an ongoing criminal investigation had gone off perfectly" doesn't constitute a claim of a stolen election.

They didn't even successfully suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story - the failed cover-up attracted far more attention than the story would have done organically.

How do you figure that? It was also algorithmically supressed from what I remember. I doubt it broke out to the normies.

As tempting as it is to haggle over price, I suspect we’d just be shouting “nuh uh!” at each other.

So—sure, whatever, fuck those guys. What’s that got to do with the price of semiconductors in China? Do you think Trump’s Jan 6 speech was incitement or not?

Because if you don’t, there’s no way this video rises to that level. It shows motive but not means or opportunity. That makes it shameless posturing.

While the Democrats were hinting extremely obviously that the military / intelligence community should basically pull off a coup

Whatever sort of dogwhistle this is supposed to be, I don't hear it. Are you saying that their assertion (that under US law, as a soldier or whatever you are allowed to or even obliged to ignore illegal orders) is false? Because if it isn't, then this is as much of a coup as it would be for a random civilian to fail to bend his schlong straight into the rectum if the Donald were to say "go fuck yourself" to his face. Presumably written and customary law already circumscribes what commands from the president anyone actually has to obey; the video merely asserts that this is not "all of them" for soldiers or the intelligence community either. Any expectations that those who made it may have about the specific kinds of unlawful commands that they expect to be given in the near future are irrelevant, and surely this is for the individual soldier/intelligence community member to determine (under risk of standing court martial or whatever if they determine badly).

Are you saying that their assertion (that under US law, as a soldier or whatever you are allowed to or even obliged to ignore illegal orders) is false? Because if it isn't,

No, it's not. But that's not what they're arguing. They're arguing "whatever orders you are getting are illegal because the administration is illicit/Not My President/it's mean if you do these things against our favoured groups/do what we tell you not what they tell you".

Where in the video does it say that? To begin with, I assume the context is what Wikipedia glosses here as "Experts, human rights groups and international bodies said the killings were illegal under US and international law", so even if they are wrong or confused, the form of the belief clearly is that the military may be given orders that are illegal in the standard sense of the word rather than some sort of tribal brainrot Calvinball of the type you are evoking.

The video heavily implies that illegal orders have already happened. "This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against citizens... Right now, the threats to our constitution are not just coming from abroad, but from right here at home."

It heavily implies that soldiers should refuse their current orders. However, those orders are presumed legal until proved otherwise by the judicial system. They at the very least are guilty of providing atrocious legal advice.

They at the very least are guilty of providing atrocious legal advice.

That's true, but it's hardly anything near sedition.

Soldiers unsure about the legality of orders should go talk to a JAG. That's what it's for.

If the atrocious legal advice is, "disobey your commanding officers," then yeah that sounds seditious and it is illegal to advise.

Add up the following:

  • While service members have the right to refuse illegal orders, all orders are presumed lawful, and the burden falls on the service member to prove an order is manifestly unlawful.

  • The video implies without evidence that unlawful orders have already happened.

  • The video therefore implies that current orders which have the presumption of being lawful should be disobeyed.

  • UCMJ 94 says: " (1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny; (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;"

So I guess the lingering question is if a coordinated video advising that currently presumed lawful orders should be treated as if they were unlawful counts as a disturbance. But if so, yes, sedition is the word used in the military code.

I can't say that I buy the second bullet about implying that unlawful orders already happened. YMMV, but I think if you look at a claim and conclude it's "without evidence" then you should probably conclude that the speaker(s) did not actually intent that claim.

Right now, the threats to our constitution are not just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.

How else do you interpret this sentence?

“The mods should ban you for conduct that breaks the rules. … What? I’m not calling for you to be banned! I’m just stating the hypothetical that if you were to break the rules, then the mods should ban you. You wouldn’t disagree with that right?”

I think we all understand that this hypothetical would be disingenuous.

I think we all understand that hypotheticals often carry literal meaning. Out of the infinite hypotheticals you could be speaking, you chose this one. You’re singling something out. There’s a specific implication. The hypothetical voice is saying something.

In this case, Democratic senators are saying they want the military to violate Trump’s unlawful orders. They’re singling out Trump. They’re singling out the military. They’re singling out Trump’s orders to the military. We all understand what they’re implying. They want the military to disobey Trump.

Now, I’m sure they believe he is committing unlawful acts, in which case disobedience would be righteous. But it’s a pretty thin figleaf to suppose that, well, they’re just speaking hypothetically, they’re not saying anything really. Then why speak at all? Why that emphasis? Why now? If we pretend the hypothetical voice doesn’t convey literal meaning, we have to pretend they’re saying nothing at all.

That is, as long as someone says the magic word, “hypothetically,” they’re absolved for all responsibility. If Tanks roll up to the White House tomorrow, why, these Democrats didn’t call for that at all, unless Trump were breaking the law, in which case the thing they said had nothing to do with it.

“If Trump were breaking the law then…” If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle!

I really don't think that an assertion to the effect of "we believe Trump's orders are illegal, and want to remind you that you have an obligation to not obey illegal orders" is in any sense similar to a coup - even if some soldiers actually followed up on it, insubordination is still not a coup but just a disciplinary matter. To begin with, I'd be surprised if under the present US military code, the actual action they are calling for even obliquely (refusing an order to participate in some attack) would carry the death penalty, so in what world does it make sense to suggest that the instigators deserve it? (In toxoplasma terms, it would seem eminently less escalatory to me to call for giving Trump the Saddam treatment in response to this, given that he is apparently calling for killing his political opponents.)

I’m not sure they believe the orders are illegal. They think they are getting political currency out of #resisting and this is another way to show they are #resisting.

We very often talk about the future in such terms. I told my son "if you bang your spoon on the table, it gets taken away". It's not hypothetical, it's saying that if a possible thing comes to pass, this is what may come of it.

So yeah, the Dem Senators are indeed highlighting this as a thing that might happen in the future. Perhaps they singled it out because they fear it.

Well I guess Trump isn’t threatening anyone but merely highlighting the death penalty for treason as a thing that might happen in the future.

I think he asserted that it already happened and they "SHOULD BE ARRESTED" (capitalization original).

What is the 'it' they fear? A military that disobeys unlawful orders without any legal process, which curtails Democrats own ability to issue orders of dubious legality like Obama drone striking a US citizen? Or the orders being executed that actually are lawful but unpopular for Democrats?

If I threaten to take my childs spoon from him after I issue the warning, I am the one exercising the threat. The democrats are saying the orders may be unlawful and the military itself should exercise judgment on the unlawfulness to remove trump. The responsibility is borne solely by others and never by the democrats for affirming an active course of action. It is yet another example of cowardice in action and intent, cloaking desired outcomes behind someone elses actions and preparing oneself to take credit later on.

curtails Democrats own ability to issue orders of dubious legality like Obama drone striking a US citizen

If you're going to trot this tired canard out, you should consider invoking it at Ulysses Grant who ordered ~100K US citizens killed by canon and bayonet.

The democrats are saying the orders may be unlawful and the military itself should exercise judgment on the unlawfulness to remove trump. The responsibility is borne solely by others and never by the democrats for affirming an active course of action.

If they had made themselves judge of the lawfulness, you'd consider that arrogation of authority they don't have.

I do think the a soldier should consult with a JAG if there is a questionable order, even given the presumption of legality.

I do consider this an arrogation of authority! I also consider the JAQing off about "if the military is given illegal orders shouldn't they disobey hint hint hint" an arrogation of authority as well, compounded with cowardly evasiveness.

Grant was ordered to kill 100k US citizens, and that should have triggered a supreme court crisis right from the outset even with the generals who were first mobilized. That no such challenge was sustained proves only that the durability of legalistic restrictions is a choice, one that Trump has clearly shown can be steamrolled over de facto by just simply fucking doing it. To be bound by the laws is a choice if unbacked by kinetic measures, and the chief wielders of kinetic force (army and police) get a say in whether they want to follow the rules. Right now the US security establishment has leaders prefer to resign with dignity intact rather than stage coups to enforce or resist "unlawful" orders. For democrats to hope for a noble cincinnatus to overthrow Trump and restore the republic to the exiled senatorial class is Sorkinian fantasy. Sucks but it is what it is. If the leaders don't want to actively resist orders, what chance some E4 giving a single shit about the legality of his actions.

to remove trump

There is a huge gap between the "refuse to obey illegal orders" talk I saw and this. Could you link (and ideally transcribe) what you're paraphrasing here?

I'm reflecting line of argument upthread. I don't actually believe it, but the democrats are signalling that they expect the military to oppose trump to ends beneficial to democrat political objectives, the bare minimum being preventing the military being a + point for trump.

The democrats statements are cowardly weaselling: we expect the military to disobey illegal orders proactively but we are not actually saying trumps orders are illegal, we expect the military to make that judgment for themselves to achieve a political objective benefitting democrats. Oh and the reverse implication is that the military is conducting illegal orders under trump by executing the missions.

If the orders are illegal state it openly as such. Why make a statement decrying the consequences of illegal orders if there are no illegal orders. Democrats clearly hope to gain political capital out of this but are too cowardly to actually openly declare their affirmative stance.

Thing is, even if they stated the orders, they wouldn't get any significant chunk of the military to refuse them. Pretty much all of the "immigration horror" videos I've seen involve not the military but Customs and Border Protection. If you went into that agency (which is civilian anyway), you're not going to have any problem with the orders to arrest illegals. The National Guard has been used against rioters, and also to basically show the flag by standing around and looking tough, and (aside from the deployment itself, which will play out in the courts, not in refusals by individual soldiers) doesn't involve any facially illegal orders.

So if they specified anything, not only would they be treading closer to actionable sedition, but they'd get nothing for it.

Possibly relevant: today is the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials.

How does a civil war actually manifest in the current environment? Terrorism sure. Although civilian Marxists have been pushing to arm themselves since Trump’s 2016 campaign, they’re still a few decades behind the right. The MAGA right is probably even better armed than normie Republicans.

The intelligence community and the brass may have a fair amount of anti-Trump sentiment, but I don’t think they command the loyalty of the grunts. In a coup attempt, I suspect the Marines would gladly clear out Langley and Fort Meade. The big, mostly red county map comes into play. Democratic strongholds, while densely populated, are essentially islands. Then there’s the constant refrain directed at 2A activists: “What are you going to do against a drone?” That argument collapses even faster than the standard rebuttal when the right controls the executive branch and the grunts. At that point it’s no longer armed civilians sabotaging your planes and drones on the ground - it’s Marines attacking the base itself. The left has almost no ability to project power outside the areas it already control

Although civilian Marxists have been pushing to arm themselves since Trump’s 2016 campaign, they’re still a few decades behind the right.

The marxists have much better force multiplication.

Even tens of millions of conservatives with rifles in their safes, but who only take them out to go to the range (alone) or hunting, can't match the capability of even a few tens of thousands of Marxists with institutional support, networks, and a proven doctrine for organizing and carrying out insurrectionist violence while minimizing legal consequences. Conservatives don't even have a consistent capability to organize simple protests, much less the sorts of shows of force that are routine on the left.

Yes, and thank you for pointing this out. Given how obvious this is, I don't know why it's so hard to get people on the right (as well as a few on the moderate left) to understand it.

I think that folks on both sides understand the principle at some level, just not enough to actually take the principle to its logical conclusion.

One of the more common anti-2A refrains is along the lines of "you and your AR-15 can't take on the government!", which is true. The counterpoint is "the government is outnumbered and an armed populace doing guerilla warfare wins pretty much every time", which is also true. Both sides of this argument basically understand that the actual important part is being able to arrange for a bunch of people to act in concert toward their shared political goal. The left is way better at this.

The counterpoint is "the government is outnumbered and an armed populace doing guerilla warfare wins pretty much every time", which is also true.

No, it's not true. In Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present, Max Boot calculates that, of all the insurgencies since 1775, about 78% of them failed. Of the 22% who did win, one of the necessary (though not sufficient) preconditions is substantial material support from one or more foreign states. (Also, AIUI, practically every case of successful guerrilla warfare has been against a de facto foreign occupation.)

The left is way better at this.

Yes, and the right seems unwilling to try to remedy that.

How does a civil war actually manifest in the current environment? Terrorism sure

The problem is if that gets bad enough, state governments and the feds eventually have to take sides. People including myself will often point out how the first American Civil War was militarily not much like a traditional civil war, and more like a war between two nations. But the political breakdown leading to that actually does look a lot like a civil war and you can see the progression:

  1. Weirdos like us began to see the risks of future political breakdown over the slavery question as early as 1820, look at Jefferson’s “fire bell in the night” letter.

  2. This political breakdown actually begins happening in 1832. The Nullification Crisis wasn’t over slavery, it was over taxes, but everyone could see it could apply to other things too. Like slavery.

  3. Actual incidents of bloodshed start to happen periodically. Nat Turner’s revolt happens in 1832. Elijah Lovejoy is murdered in 1837. It’s 20 years out from the beginning of major hostilities, but already everyone is on edge.

  4. Mass scale lawfare begins in the 1840s. There are highly contentious compromises over admitting various slave and free states.

  5. Large scale paramilitaries begin to form in the early 1850s. By 1854, there is actual low-intensity guerrilla warfare breaking out in Kansas.

  6. The scale of the violence gets high enough that state actors and influential people are beginning to take sides. By the mid 1850s Pro-slavery and Pro-freesoil militias are getting lots of funding from somewhere to buy sophisticated military hardware including artillery.

  7. Things boil over in the late 1850s with the twin shocks of the Dredd Scott decision and John Brown’s raid. The Dredd Scott decision and the Fugitive Slave Act mean that major institutions of the federal government are now openly taking sides in the conflict. John Brown’s raid shows that large scale business entities in the north are now willing to directly fund paramilitary attacks against the South with the aim of overthrowing their social order by force.

  8. Lincoln is elected in 1860. The South begins to panic. The federal government they had weaponized is now going to be turned against them.

  9. Most southern states still have no interest in secession. One particularly radicalized state, South Carolina, secedes from the union in 1860.

  10. The first shots between South Carolina and the federal government are fired in early 1861. The lines are now drawn, and state governments now have to actually take sides. The political order rapidly crumbles as state after state begins to secede.

America today seems to be in the 4-5 range, with worrying indicators that it’s about to go to stage 6.

What’s your model for a “traditional” civil war? I’d like to see this analysis applied to the Romans, the English, the Bolsheviks, whichever you think is most typical. I suspect the extreme asymmetry of various third-world conflicts is a modern phenomenon more than a traditional one.

Also, I don’t think Jefferson was slumming it with weirdos like us.

Also, I don’t think Jefferson was slumming it with weirdos like us.

Vance on the other hand...

I’d say it applies fairly well to all three of those.

  1. The lawfare and sporadic outbreaks of violence started a lot earlier with Rome (about 40-80 years before formal military activity). The formal state apparatuses got dragged in a lot faster. But otherwise this mostly holds.

  2. It applies less well to the English Civil War, since that originated as jostling between two branches of the government. But you do see lawfare (arrest warrants and royal prosecutions) before the outbreak of formal hostilities.

  3. There was an increasingly intense pattern of SR terrorist activity and labor strike actions beginning in the 1880s, that then eventually dragged in the people and the military against the Tsar.

Also, I don’t think Jefferson was slumming it with weirdos like us.

Sh-sh-shut up! * sobs *

Terrorism sure.

American Civil War II: The Troubles Goes Hawaiian

The MAGA right is probably even better armed than normie Republicans.

I don't know about that. The MAGA right almost by definition are a different group from core ideological conservatives, who do indeed have lots of guns. MAGA is probably better armed than average, and the most heavily-armed groups are indeed pro-MAGA, but Trump>republican challengers is not their ideology. YMMV, but my most heavily armed cousins supported Cruz in the 2016 primary and Desantis in 2024.

That being said, I do think you're mostly correct that the red tribe would win a civil war, although it would be a lot uglier than you're counting on. I also think the actually competent groups on the left know this, so they won't try anything.

My point isn't so much that it would be easy. More that with the current dynamic it's extremely unlikely to even happen in what I would define as "civil war".

The civil war would surely not manifest itself as a coup attempt, but as something like CHAZ on a much larger scale. Do you think the Marines would actually gladly clear out Seattle or Chicago if they decided to set up armed checkpoints to prevent federal government representatives from entering? Do you not think some units would mutiny if the order were given, given that the rank and file is hardly uniformly Red?

Semantics but if the military isn't involved I don't consider it a Civil War.

The federal government's internal troops are not marines, though. The federal government has law enforcement paramilitaries(under the DHS and DOJ), and if they aren't good enough there's the national guard. 'Federal paramilitaries and national guard units willing to follow questionably legal orders if they're backed by the republican party' are surely a thing- as Greg Abbott demonstrated in his border standoffs with the Biden admin.

Similar to how it happens in latin american countries. Mexico is in a state of civil war and the Mexican government doesn't have total control over the country. The coming civil war looks like a failed state with groups fighting each other. There probably will be fewer explicit political groups fighting and more low level violence and gang violence.

While the Democrats were hinting extremely obviously that the military / intelligence community should basically pull off a coup,

From the context, I do not think that follows. There are plenty of situations where the correct response is just to say "No sir, I will not do that", without trying to dispose whoever gave the unlawful order.

Personally, I think the winning strategy for the Democrats is to wait Trump out. Time works for them. Few economists think that his tariffs will lead to economic success, the mid-terms are coming up, and without a majority in Congress MAGA will be much more limited in what they can do.

Sure, he will blow up more boats in the meanwhile, but blowing brown people up without a declaration of war has been a hobby of all presidents in this century so far, nobody really cares. And while sending his troops into cities which voted for Harris and deporting school students is not good, in the great scheme of things it is also not sufficient reason to end the American experiment with democracy. Established, traditional politicians are doing okay under the present system, and are hopefully reluctant to overthrow everything. I sincerely hope that most Democrats are smart enough to understand that a one-time surgical breaking of the constitution to get rid of Trump followed by business as usual will not work.

I am a bit more worried about the MAGA crowd, though. They are not your traditional Republicans who have thrived under the status quo for generations. Trump is certainly spending a lot more effort on placing loyal officers in charge than he was in his first term. One man's coup-proofing is another man's coup preparation. Frankly speaking, the Trump crowd has no regard for mos maiorum, for how things are done in politics, and while the chances that GWB would pull a Gracchi and run for a third term were basically nil, with Trump all things are possible.

I think the legitimacy principle of two terms only is far too strong- we're more likely to get a king than a president for life, and we're more likely to get a libertarian president than either.

An annointed Trump successor, on the other hand, is very plausible.

while the chances that GWB would pull a Gracchi and run for a third term were basically nil, with Trump all things are possible.

Eh. It's not that I'd put it past him if he were even just ten years younger - but that's just it, he isn't. Guy's old. By no means senile or at death's door, but you just don't pull this sort of shit at 82.

The video claims that the current administration is threatening democracy and the constitution, and that the military "must refuse illegal orders."

I haven't watched the video because I get enough propaganda per day, but did they happen to specify which orders are the illegal ones that should be refused?

If it's the video I'm thinking of, no, they did not. It's rapid-fire cuts between them identifying themselves and their credentials and telling the military to refuse illegal orders, as though they all read the same script and then each recording was cut into 3s or less chunks and quilted together. It's kinda disorienting.

Nope! Just said "Right the ship."

The video posted by Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) did not say "Right the ship", it said "Don't give up the ship!". The latter is a very specific phrase with a very specific context and connotations within the cultural mythos of the United States Military.

That connotation is that this is the war of 1812 and the enemy is not at the gate, the enemy is already inside the walls and they need to be killed or democracy will die.

Imagine a French politician making allusions to Madame' Guillotine and "the final argument of kings" during an inter-party squabble. That is essentially what this is here.

Elissa Slotkin is a "former" CIA operative, right?

Former CIA employee, yes.

I do not know. I am only familiar with her as the junior senator from Michigan.

Maybe I’ve been watching too much Vaush, but this is a pretty weak-sauce video from the Democrats. Why are they still appealing to people’s consciences? It’s pretty clear that isn’t a viable strategy for stopping this stuff. The baseline UCMJ statute of limitations is 5 years. Why not come out and say, “if you obey an unlawful order, we will remember and we will prosecute you.” Show that you take it seriously. Put your own liberty on the line before asking someone else to do it for you.

An entire party of massive pussies. Maybe they’re losing because it feels emasculating to vote for them.

It’s pretty clear that isn’t a viable strategy for stopping this stuff.

They aren't trying to stop this stuff, they're campaigning for the midterms.

Yeah, that's what is so tiresome about it. It's not really about appealing to the military, whom they probably think are a bunch of ignorant white rednecks, but to signal to their own side that they are La Résistance, vote for us in the upcoming elections, we take all your concerns seriously because look, we're repeating your talking points.

I was somewhat amused that in that glowfic quoted in a different post on here because of course, naturellement, ICE are Le Ebil. Le big grand monstrous eeeeevuuuulll. Not a bunch of guys doing their jobs in a government department, nope, Big Evil. That is the attitude amongst the Bay Area Rationalist glowfic writers who are going to vote straight Democrat in the midterms, and that's the constituency this kind of video is appealing to: the military are being forced to follow illegal orders by the evil moustache-twirlers in power, and if they don't raise their consciousness enough to realise this is what is going on, well you and your views about the boots on the ground grunts have been proven to be justified.

I was somewhat amused that in that glowfic quoted in a different post on here because of course, naturellement, ICE are Le Ebil. Le big grand monstrous eeeeevuuuulll. Not a bunch of guys doing their jobs in a government department, nope, Big Evil. That is the attitude amongst the Bay Area Rationalist glowfic writers who are going to vote straight Democrat in the midterms, and that's the constituency this kind of video is appealing to: the military are being forced to follow illegal orders by the evil moustache-twirlers in power, and if they don't raise their consciousness enough to realise this is what is going on, well you and your views about the boots on the ground grunts have been proven to be justified.

From that I may be as bold in my beliefs:

The pay is good near Sunnydale - unreasonably good, she can make twenty paper dollars in a day - but the land is cursed. They had not planned to come here at all. "It's an evil place," she was told, "full of demons," and she nodded very seriously. She will fight demons, if it must be done, but she will almost certainly die of it, because demons are strong; it would be better to wait, and come back when she has the strength to fight demons and win.

But then a job fell through in Orange County and there were rumors of la migra - worse than demons, she takes it, though no one's explained them - on the coast, and they'll starve if they don't go anywhere, so it's Sunnydale.

But I'm surprised you got that far; last time you bounced off the exact same fic.

I followed through that part of the link to see what was going on. Again, laughing my sides off at the social worker and foster parent all ready to get up in arms over EVIL FUNDIE PARENTS when it's the girl herself who insisted on heading off to serve God (and pretty clearly is from another world/dimension, not our own).

Sure. Conservatives bad, we get it 😁

I can't even tell who is baiting whom anymore.

This one reads like Trump rising to some sort of obvious bait, yet the Dems are getting further and further out over their skis with this whole "threatening Democracy" thing.

As far as I can tell, we just had an election held that produced winners that were not favorable to Trump, and there was not a single attempt to overturn those outcomes or halt the election or otherwise interfere in it.

Adding on the pleas to get the military to act in some very under-specified way and its genuinely annoying at this point to have to deal with the constant superposition of "Trump is literally inches away from becoming supreme leader of a fascist state unless we act NOW" and "by 'act now', we really just mean 'vote for Dems in the next election like a good citizen.'"

I dunno, Trump has actual reasons to be concerned about seditious behavior given how much as been revealed in just the past month about Dems (up to and including Barack Obama?) worked to hamstring him.

He's gone after Comey and Brennan using the standard, established criminal justice process, he didn't have them assassinated in their beds in the middle of the night.

But its also kinda incoherent to call for someone's arrest for Sedition while being the guy who is in charge of the agencies that would be arresting them.

Shit or get off the pot guys. All this sound and fury signifying nothing is just tedious.

get the military to act in some very under-specified way

Seems more like they're trying to urge the military not to act in a particular way.

And that way being to not follow lawful orders, which the urgers would like to insinuate are unlawful but are neither inclined to specify nor are they culpable for the consequences of a wrong judgement (though they will, of course, make much political propaganda about it).

But its also kinda incoherent to call for someone's arrest for Sedition while being the guy who is in charge of the agencies that would be arresting them.

Sure, because he's not actually going to order their arrests. He's just bloviating in response to obvious bait. Truth Social seems to be his preferred outlet for doing so.

As mentioned, though, he HAS taken action against political enemies now, with Comey's indictment being an opening salvo.

But obviously arresting sitting congresspeople who haven't done a blatant crime is a much harder lift.

If my understanding is correct, Comey basically signed off on a witch hunt that he knew was baseless. And it wasted two to three years of the first Trump presidency.

If that is true or someone believes it to be true then he definitely should be prosecuted for that shit.

The other political opponent is that New York prosecutor (Letitia James?) that went after him for real estate fraud. It was a bogus case that lots of people are semi guilty of. He went after her for the exact same thing. It's the most tit-for-tat political retaliation ever.

It's the most tit-for-tat political retaliation ever.

Yep.

Completely irrespective of ideal political norms or even the optics of it, I have to respect how precisely targeted and proportional it is.

Comey basically signed off on a witch hunt that he knew was baseless. And it wasted two to three years of the first Trump presidency.

Given that issue, and the irregularities around the 2020 election, I'd almost just shrug it off if Trump wanted a third term.

He shouldn't get one, and not just because of the rules. But the bureaucracy effectively vetoing a President's agenda for years (with congress' tacit approval, granted) is a worse problem than a President winning an election for a third time.

Oh, the Letitia James case. The 34 FELONIES!!! case. I've always disliked Trump, but the way his political rivals and enemies have gone after him is just ludicrous.

The solemn, po-faced repetition (which I have encountered elsewhere just recently) that he committed 34 FELONIES!!! is risible. "Okay, what did he do?" "Mortgage fraud!" "Okay, that's one crime, and the other 33?" "Mortgage fraud!"

34 charges for one offence are not at all the same as 34 different and separate crimes. Murdering one person is wrong, but it's not the same as murdering thirty-four people, but this is the equivalence they are trying to make. I'm not even sure that it is a crime as such, since Wikipedia calls it the "New York business fraud lawsuit" which sounds more like a civil than criminal case, and this bit confuses me:

Investigators stated that the "focus of the subpoena, and the investigation, is Mr. Trump's statement of financial condition," alleging that Trump's financial statements were used to secure more than $300 million in loans, and that these "were generally inflated as part of a pattern to suggest that Mr. Trump's net worth was higher than it otherwise would have appeared".

So they charged him with... lying about being richer than he was in fact? And that turned into 34 FELONIES!!!!?

Or am I completely wrong and the 34 FELONIES!!! is the "paying hush money to the porn star" campaign finance case? Even so, the same applies: 34 charges for one offence not the same as 34 different offences in different crimes.

Or am I completely wrong and the 34 FELONIES!!! is the "paying hush money to the porn star" campaign finance case? Even so, the same applies: 34 charges for one offence not the same as 34 different offences in different crimes.

Correct. The THIRTY FOUR FELONIES was purportedly because he mislabeled the expenses in his own accounting book and thereby defrauded himself to retroactively cheat in the election that had already happened.

The mortgage fraud one was where his claimed value of a property used as collateral was different from what a partisan hack Democrat judge was willing to claim it was, and that this constituted fraud against the bank that was testifying on Trump's behalf, and therefor the state of NY was entitled to damages in the amount of the highest possible theoretical value that Trump could have benefited, multiplied by the highest theoretically possible return on investment he could have made with that difference in the intervening years (which would have been far outside the statute of limitations, but I believe they got around that changing the law for the express and exclusive purpose of Getting Trump).

Thanks for the clarification, there have been so many cases and accusations I get muddled.

I do think the 34 FELONIES thing is disingenuous because it refers to one over-arching crime. The impression it is intended to leave is that Trump has committed all these BIG SERIOUS CRIMES in a series of BIG SERIOUS CRIMES, but it's really THIS ONE CASE.

I think most people laugh at it, though.

I think the 34 FELONIES thing is disingenuous simply because the same people who insist that Donald Trump's victimless paperwork crime makes him a horrible person because the word "felony" is attached to it, routinely start massive riots on behalf of, advocate the minimum possible legal consequences for, and grant patronage to, people who commit actual acts of violence that also have the word "felony" attached to them.

As a moderate opponent¹ of Mr Trump, I did get a 'nabbing al-Capone for tax evasion' impression from the matter....

¹Capable of understanding that not every possible criticism of him is necessarily true², and of recognising his stopped-clock moments³.

²Compare the cancellation of Bill Maher post-9/11 for pointing out that the hijackers, while irrational⁴ anti-freedom murderers, were not, in the usual sense⁵ of the term, cowards.

³Such as the Executive Order on architectural styles.

⁴For those not familiar with Mr Maher's oeuvre, he has a very dim view of organised religion.

⁵As opposed to the vague 'bad person' sense, which far too many terms for specific character flaws erode into....

But its also kinda incoherent to call for someone's arrest for Sedition while being the guy who is in charge of the agencies that would be arresting them.

I had this thought too, but there seems to be a general pattern in the Trump administration of government via social media. Tweeting this stuff out may be the most effective way Trump has of directly communicating with US Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro.

It seems to me that you and @faceh are framing this as though law and public sentiment are two distinct things, and are wondering why Trump is making appeals to public sentiment when he could simply use the law. But it is evident that the law is much weaker than legible public sentiment, even disregarding the legal mechanisms by which law emerges from public sentiment in the first place.

The current era is best understood as a massive, distributed search for ways to hurt the outgroup as badly as possible without getting in too much trouble. Coordinating public sentiment is the most effective method possible for reducing the amount of trouble one gets in when hurting the outgroup. The law is a whore, and public sentiment is the coin she trades in; if public sentiment is on-side, paper rules are no impediment at all.

The current era is best understood as a massive, distributed search for ways to hurt the outgroup as badly as possible without getting in too much trouble.

Still? You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. The current era is best understood as social media-induced brainrot afflicting each generation in it's own way, with zoomers doing whatever it is they do on tiktok, boomers/gen Xers schizo posting incoherently in news comments sections and millennials straddling the line. Then some idiots on the margin actually Do Something, and the rest of us are dragged through the ensuing shitstorm.

If you still believe your model has so much explanatory power, make some predictions:

This time, I'll ask: do you genuinely think my prediction was wrong, and that we are in fact moving away from large-scale violence? Do you genuinely believe the Culture War is winding down? And since no FCfromSSC post would be complete without a link to some other excessively-long comment, nor with a listing of recent violence datapoints, here's both in one from last week.

I do not think I am obsessed with small-minded, zero sum games. I am interested in what is going to happen next, and what is happening next is, it seems to me, largely determined by such games. Most people are obsessed with winning and losing, and because their values are now mutually-incoherent, cooperative victory is no longer a viable option. I think that internalizing this insight gives me a clearer picture of where we are heading, which is of course the main question we've debated for some years now.

As for myself, I am already saved. I think my side will win, but whether it does or not does not is a matter of no true consequence; nothing that truly matters to me is protected by victory or lost by defeat. I do not believe in progress, moral or otherwise. There is nothing new under the sun, all things are wearisome more than one can say. This is the bedrock truth as I understand it, and while I freely admit that it does not come naturally to me, I try to maintain a clear sight of it, even at some personal cost, even here.

Riots and political violence failed to manifest after a brainrotted zoomer killed Kirk two months ago, elections ran smoothly and the political momentum seems to be swinging away from 'Your Side.' I'll give you and @ThomasdelVasto ten to one odds that there's no civil war before the completion of the next presidential election, and I'd give you much better odds if I sat down to think about it more and actually had the money to bet on it. I'd wager that if we had some indices of political violence and economic prosperity, the former would be below 1960s/1970s level, the latter would be close to some ATH and the only way the current era is remarkable is how efficiently the internet has divided us.

But please, make your own predictions.

Shit or get off the pot guys. All this sound and fury signifying nothing is just tedious.

Yeah very much agree here. I'm tired of Trump communicating and signaling as if he is going to take serious action, then... not doing it?! It's kind of the worst of both worlds in that it gets the opposition riled up while winning no victories for his base. I don't understand it.

I understand it as Trump doing his version of constant A/B testing to see if there's any appetite for following through.

I don't know what his negotiating stance is in this case. Dems feel comfortable speaking out against him. Boohoo. Staff the agencies with as many friendly people as possible and fire as many of the rest as possible (which means fighting the Courts, granted) so there's minimal concern about mutiny.

Just keep doing things and if the best the Dems can muster is veiled non-threats then its safe to ignore that rather than give them new sound bites.

And if its time to kick things off by actually arresting them, then cowabunga it is, I've been ready for that for years now.

I think this is basically right. In addition Trump isn’t just A/B testing the base but the Republican leadership in Washington. I would guess it’s about 50/50 or 40/60 in his favor, with a little over half of Republicans still hoping we can go back to the days of “decency” and tax cuts.

Technically the Democrats in that video are right that soldiers do not have to obey unlawful orders. But in practice, orders are presumed lawful unless a military judge rules otherwise. From the Uniform Code of Military Justice: "Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge."

It seems obvious to me that the implication of what these Democrat legislators are saying is "The stuff Trump is having you do in Portland, D.C., and Chicago is illegal and you should disobey those orders." If that's what they had actually said I think there would be a strong case against them, but with the mere "implied" meaning I think there's enough plausible deniability to avoid any actual consequences.

Well, where does it explain the bounds of "patently illegal?" All illegal orders direct the commission of a crime, inasmuch as carrying out an illegal order is itself a crime.

There is history on what manifestly illegal means.

If that's what they had actually said I think there would be a strong case against them

Do you mean this in a legal sense? Because I very much doubt that is true. Saying, “I think what these government agents are doing is bad and illegal,” is quite squarely within the core area of first-amendment protections for speech on matters of public concern. I’m not even sure what statute would plausibly cover this. Treason is defined in the literal constitution in a way which doesn’t seem to apply here (who are the enemies of the United States being given aid and comfort to?).

If your point is that, “Elissa Slotkin told me to do it,” wouldn’t be a valid defense in a court-martial, I would have to agree with that.

Treason is defined in the literal constitution in a way which doesn’t seem to apply here (who are the enemies of the United States being given aid and comfort to?).

Treason and sedition are two different things. However, U.S. code does not authorize death as a punishment for sedition.

Saying, “I think what these government agents are doing is bad and illegal,” is quite squarely within the core area of first-amendment protections for speech on matters of public concern.

I agree, but saying that plus "and I urge members of the military and federal agencies to disobey these orders" would likely fall under incitement.

Okay, I think I found the law that is supposed to deal with that, 18 U.S. Code § 2387

Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States:

(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States

I don't think they're asking them to refuse to obey orders. I think its more of the counseling and urging to cause disloyalty or impair loyalty within the military and intelligence communities.

Free speech protections are pretty high though and they would have run this past the lawyers before running the ad.

they would have run this past the lawyers before running the ad.

One would hope, but if someone has a Bright Idea and can persuade other squirrels that this is a great notion to win votes and position themselves so as to survive any intra-party purges once the fighting over who will steer the ship, the moderates or the progressive wing, is done - then they're likely to have leaped at the chance before asking advice of sober heads.

Hmm interesting. It seems that it can be read to say that even if the orders are actually illegal, if you say it in the wrong way as to cause loyalty or morale issues, that can still be punished.

I think you can say "In my view, X is illegal" and that's free speech. What this video seems to be doing is stating (by implication?) "X is illegal and moreover you should disobey orders to do X" which I think is going beyond their authority when it's addressed to members of the military specifically and not the general public at large.

This is downstream of the orders actually being legal. Saying that X is illegal and therefore troops should refuse to do X depends a lot ob X.

With this touching the 1A, I also suppose that courts might allow you to say so if "X is illegal" is a defendable legal position. For example, one might have voiced the opinion that waterboarding is torture and US troops are required to refuse to engage in it, and even as the courts decided that nah, gitmo was just fine, they might presumably still refuse to convict you under that title. (I dunno, there is probably case law here.)

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