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 -
But they are the same question. Respect for the blue slip is, given facts, a rejection of Habba.
It is always within the power of the majority (plus Vance) to move whatever they want through.
No—there is a difference between refusing to bring someone up for a vote and voting no.
This distinction breaks down completely at the meta level when legislative leaders won't bring something to a vote because it lacks majority support. It's a waste of time Senators would rather spend fundraising or eating steak on a lobbyist's dime or flying back home.
In this case, Graham specifically said there were not votes to advance Habba. I have no reason to doubt him on that, but I'm fine if you want to make this contingent on the result of that hypothetical vote. What I object to is the idea that it's meaningfully different for the purposes of "advise and consent" for the Senate to have that vote or not.
Because you seem to be conflating “wont vote due to custom” v “rejection on the merits.”
"Won't vote" implies that the officer cannot assume the powers of a principal officer. And again, on the meta, the Senators know that not voting means rejecting the candidate.
Imagine applying this to any other clause. The Constitution says that no money can be spent except as authorized by Congress. Senators understand this too.
Except we aren’t dealing with something where Congress has not authorized anything. We are dealing with a situation where Congress has permitted interim appointments.
It is closer to the following:
Congress gives the president 100m to spend if they don’t vote on X.
They don’t vote on X for certain reasons.
We can’t say failure to vote on X means something.
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