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 -
Cancelling executive orders are an escalation cycle, but not a very serious step. Biden entered office bulk-cancelling Trump's executive orders, and I would expect to see the same thing happen again the next time the White House changes hands regardless of Trump's actions here.
Pardons are more serious, if he tries to prosecute someone with a pardon, for behavior clearly covered by the pardon. The courts will, absolutely unsurprisingly, boot such an attempt very early in the process; there's zero votes to review the pardon power at SCOTUS, and not many in the 5th Circuit. That's a kinda bad, because there's some evidence available that people used the power of the pardon without Biden's direct acknowledgment and maybe without even having been delegated that power, and that can go into some really bad (and Nicholas Cage movie-) tier problems. But it's not really resolvable this way, and it'll encourage and invite new and innovative attempts in retribution that have courts willing to rubber-stamp wrong Blue-Tribe opinions on this matter.
If it's just making sounds that could cover that, but not acting on it, it's a step in the escalation spiral that was crossed over a decade ago.
Trying to argue that autopen'd signatures on full legislation is void would be a massive escalation. Not as big as I wish it was, since there's been a few other cases where Presidents stopped defending or enforcing laws that they didn't like, but still huge and with a wide variety of downstream effects, some of which would be so bad that I don't want to talk about them publicly.
There's been a pretty wide array of counterexamples. I'm a big fan of The Saga Of Defense Distributed, because it culminated in the courts specifically accepting the argument that a previous court-recognized settlement wasn't worth the toilet paper it was written on, but see for example Bank Pause Letters for a space where I don't have a lot of sympathy for the victims, or this mess for just a wide variety of examples.
Thank you for your response; if I understand it correctly, it basically is:
likelyalmost certainly strike it down; if they don't, super bad.Thank you for the examples; I was thinking too narrowly (I was thinking specifically of the presidential pardon power), but I agree that Defense Distributed is basically the same.
I'd also consider bringing prosecutions that would be incompatible with active executive orders, for acts committed while those executive orders were active, to be a bad escalation. Not an unprecedented one, but because such a modification doesn't count for ex post facto stuff a space that has a lot of There Be Dragons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link