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 -
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.
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.
How else do you interpret this sentence?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link