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 -
It does help when you follow up with, “and if they do, we’ll make them suffer”.
One of the more politically enlightening experiences I had was being on a committee with a socialist who argued strenuously against the secret ballot because “people need to know there are consequences for how they vote”.
And it's indicative of something that while law firms bent the knee and universities got on their knees earlier in the year when the accusations were around anti-semitism, we're still seeing issues here.
This is important data about the Vibe Shift. Is the belief that MAGA or MAGA-adjacent leaders will have enough power to punish in the future weaker than expected? Is there an expectation that Dems will be back in office and will punish MAGA prosecutors?
Something I'm curious about is the dynamic within state level governments relative to federal for employees. Historically, AUSA is way better than local ADA or state AG's office. But right now, I'm aware of a lot of good federal lawyers looking for state level work because the federal government is unstable.
The very randomness of the Trump approach is the most effective way to rebalance the government away from the feds and towards the states.
More options
Context Copy link
While I am sure that the woke left punishes defectors who cooperate with Trump, it is team MAGA which has perfected using administrative decisions to go after the people who were in the past on the wrong side. I vaguely recall law firms (who by design are mercenary) who had represented people who were litigating against Trump finding themselves without security clearance at the start of the year (or at least having to do an extraordinary amount of ass-kissing to keep them).
Political retaliation is bad no matter who does it. But the way I recall it, when Musk bought Twitter, the reaction of the Biden admin was not to try their very best to burn Tesla and SpaceX to the ground. By contrast, if there was a billionaire who was as firmly committed to opposing Trump as Musk was opposed to the Democrats, I would totally expect Trump to do his best to destroy any companies where that billionaire holds significant stock.
This just seems crazy. Obama retaliated against law firms. Law firms were attacked for filing 2020 election cases. Musk was attacked (eg FCC cancelled grants re Starlink even though Starlink by far was better than other options not cancelled or the DOJ tried to claim worker discrimination for not hiring foreigners even though they were obliged not to do so) by Biden shortly after buying Twitter.
So I think your facts are just wrong.
Technically the FCC rejection of Starlink's rural broadband subsidy application was after Musk made the offer to buy Twitter, but before the transaction took place.
And the Biden grudge against Musk was at least a year older still. Biden holding his "Electric Vehicle Summit" but then not inviting the manufacturer of a supermajority of US EVs because they weren't unionized was ... well, the phrase "crossing the Rubicon" does get overused, but that NY Post article helpfully includes the photos of Biden literally test-driving an electric Rubicon, so who am I to argue with dramatic irony?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I definitely agree in the case of political retaliation without legitimate provocation. With respect to political retaliation which does have legitimate provocation, I would say it's bad in the same sense that war is bad. Yes, it's expensive and destructive but sometimes it's the best choice.
There's been a problem in the last few years, with abusive lawfare-style tactics on the part of certain prosecuting authorities. How does one handle such attacks? By gently entreating the attackers to stop behaving unfairly?
The question I have about this is whether this strategy was used during the first Trump administration.
Has Trump abused the power of the federal government to "do his best to destroy" CNN?
More options
Context Copy link
For that very specific example, the Biden FCC did in fact cut a major SpaceX (StarLink) contract/grant program on clearly spurious grounds (see FCC v. Starlink here for further details), the Biden EEOC brought questionable claims of anti-immigrant discrimination against SpaceX directly. And those are just the ones with Biden admin people directly signing the paper.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a "thing," but is it does it outweigh encouragement of people to keep their jobs, rather than create openings to be replaced?
Story? What kind of committee? What kind of socialist? What consequence did they want?
The story is a bit doxxy. It was local politics, he was a Labour activist and leader of the militant wing of the committee who were in the middle of a hostile takeover. He did not have ‘I am a socialist’ tattooed on his forehead but he did have a desk full of books on Marx and biographies of 20th century socialists - I knew him and believe me he was socialist.
The consequence he wanted in this particular case was extensive public shaming. It worked too - lots of people were unhappy with the new direction but absolutely refused to say so in public.
Were they an entryist or just an asshole?
Bit of both? We got in three or four entryists at the same time and they staged a coup by getting quorum and instituting DEI minority seats making up a majority of the voting positions.
Bummer! Thanks for sharing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Corvos probably knows more than me, but there is an extensive history of arguments about whether internal elections in left groups, and particularly in militant unions, should be by secret ballot. Some of it is good-faith arguments the scope of the principle that people voting in a representative capacity don't get a secret ballot because they are accountable to the people they are representing. Some of it is the hard left favoring public votes as a loyalty oath with democratic-sounding characteristics (cf elections in people's democracies).
The announcement that Labour MPs representing London constituencies would not get a secret ballot in the 2000 Mayoral selection was the point at which it became obvious to people paying attention that the selection was rigged and that Ken Livingstone would run as, and probably win as, an independent.
I think that there is a vast gulf between people voting as representatives and people voting on the base.
Secret elections are obviously better at establishing common knowledge of what the base actually wants.
But for a representative, it is more important that they be accountable to their electorate. If 3/4th of the senate vote for something deeply unpopular, you do not want every senator to be able to tell his voters "no, I totally voted against this. It was all the other lying senators to vote for it."
For important personnel decisions (where there may be a lot of pressure to vote a particular way), the fix would be not to have representatives vote but just let the base vote. In secret, obviously.
Very much agreed - for instance all legislators vote publicly on legislation and when electing officers such as the Speaker. But there are a lot of corner cases when it comes to internal party elections. One particularly important one is MPs electing their party leaders - which in Parliamentary democracies will usually be a de facto election of a Prime Minister or selection of a candidate Prime Minister. Almost all parties in almost all functioning Parliamentary democracies have decided to give MPs a secret ballot in the internal vote. (UK parties have a range of processes for combining the views of MPs and grassroots members when electing their leaders). Obviously MPs are expected to vote non-secretly for their party's preferred candidate for PM in the external vote.
This is why the London Labour thing was controversial - Blair made the MP ballot public even though analogous internal elections usually give MPs a secret ballot.
Something similar is supposed to happen in Congressional leadership elections in the US. The House majority caucus elects the Speaker-designate by secret ballot, and then all caucus members should vote for the chosen candidate in the recorded House vote for Speaker
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Classic banana republic tier shit. Why even pretend to have a vote if you're going to use social pressure tactics. Disgusting.
Funny. I’d have thought you’d be all about accountability for government.
When you’re electing representatives, it’s nice to know their actual voting record. That’s why Congress does roll-call voting.
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