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 -
New updates in the Comey and James cases. Both indictments dismissed because Lindsey Halligan was not lawfully appointed as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and so all her actions as such are void and without effect. Comey and James opinions. Though the two are substantially identical, having both been authored by the same judge. These dismissals are without prejudice meaning the government can try and secure further indictments. Although, in Comey's case this faces some additional hurdles since the statute of limitations for his offense expired several days after the first indictment against him was secured.
Note that a similar dispute is playing out in New Jersey with respect to the appointment of Alina Habba as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey and in Nevada with respect to Sigal Chattah's appointment as United States Attorney for the District of Nevada. These cases are a little more complicated than Halligan's due to implications of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act but they arose due to circumstances like what Halligan is facing now.
At the heart of these disputes is 28 USC 546 which provides:
The dispute is principally about whether the Attorney General is permitted to make successive 120-day appointments or whether the Attorney General gets a single 120-day appointment and then when that expires the District Court makes the appointment as to who shall be United States Attorney. In Halligan's case Erik Siebert had already been appointed for 120 days earlier this year and was appointed by the district court upon expiration of that appointment. He then resigned under pressure to prosecute James and Comey, whereupon Bondi purported to appoint Halligan under 28 USC 546. Naturally, the court finds that Attorney General Bondi has had her 120 day appointment and so authority to appoint a new USA for EDVA lies with the district court.
I'm amused that progressive copium that "nobody competent will work with these assholes" is turning out not to be cope.
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”.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link