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 -
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.
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).
“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!
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link