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 -
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 and sedition are two different things. However, U.S. code does not authorize death as a punishment for sedition.
More options
Context Copy link
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
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link