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 -
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link