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 -
None of those four, but they promised to Nuremberg anyone working for Trump, once they came back to power. Of course, it's not really feasible to prosecute every single person who worked for Trump - an in fact, in Nuremberg and after, not every single Nazi had been prosecuted and many, especially low-level ones, comfortably re-integrated into the society later - but it would certainly be a serious escalation. And I don't see why not do it at least to some measure - it's not like the Republicans are going to retaliate in kind. And tbh they don't need to escalate beyond that - while some totalitarian regimes descended to the point where the life of every single citizen was in peril, in most of them, day to day, one was relatively safe if one conformed and did what they are told. There's no need to murder or outlaw or bomb every single opposing person - it's enough to destroy a tiny active part and credibly threaten that the same will happen to any single person that makes trouble. And no need to suspend elections or anything like that - I mean Russia has elections. USSR had elections. As long as you control the counting process, the press, the narrative, can import voters by millions, and can occasionally just ban candidates - there's no risk in holding as many elections as you'd like. There's not even a need to have a dictatorship - DSA, Communists and Democrats can duke it out while successfully excluding anybody to the right, see California for example.
Even if president Newsom (or whomever) will have such ambitions, I think the SCOTUS will not like him banning the Republicans, and the army will likely not obey his orders to occupy the SCOTUS.
Also, given the context, I think the Nuremberg trials were rather fair. Some Nazis were actually acquitted, and a few more only received prison sentences (and were quickly released once the 'newly democratized' Germans took over).
If the Democrats released a statement to the effect that they considered the attacks on suspect civilians which the US navy had just shipwrecked by missile strike a war crime, and were going to send the whole chain of command to the Hague (e.g. the spiritual successor to the Nuremberg trials) to answer for it, I would actually applaud that. (Sadly, this is not going to happen, because a military which will follow the orders of the president without hesitation is useful to whomever is the president.)
Most successful Democratic politicians are not terminally stupid. Unlike the (mostly newcomer) MAGA crowd, they have long thrived under the present political system. Anyone who has heard of the French and Russian revolutions knows that it is impossible to coordinate around "let us use violence (or other dirty tricks) to get rid of the outgroup, but then forsake dirty tricks and play fair among ourselves". If moderate Democrats (think Hillary) coordinate with DSA and commies to get rid of the Republicans, the next act in the play will inevitably be SJ Democrats and the far left coordinating to get rid of the moderates. Russia and the USSR are/were in fact one-party systems where elections do little to influence policy. The skillset to thrive in such a system is likely very different from the skillset required to win primaries.
Making a big show of "successor empire to all other European empires moving in and taking over makes a big show of failing to brutalize the population any more than is absolutely necessary" is a massive deal. Europe had not been conquered in living memory like that (other than the Nazis; Napoleon did it too but he had been dead for a while), and the fact the Americans had the restraint to do this maintains a certain fiction that European populations still believe to this day- that they were "liberated" and not "conquered" (which is, in objective fact, what happened to them).
Perhaps, but since the entire reason the Hague exists is for the US (and Europe so long as it doesn't conflict with US interests re: Israel) to legitimize killing elites in non-US/non-European nations that oppose the aforementioned countries' interests (which is half the reason the signatories are who they are, and why the US is not a signatory to that agreement) it would be rather unusual for the US to try and kill off domestic enemies that way. Of course, most of the provinces are aligned with the conservative/Blue faction, so it wouldn't technically be out of line with how that "court" is typically used...
More options
Context Copy link
Not sure what this is arguing for. Nobody argued they are.
And they created, in many states, a political system which is essentially one-party state, with zero chance for a non-Democrat or non-Leftist to be ever elected to any position of power. The Republican party is not banned, but it does not exist as a political entity. They would very much like to create the same situation nationwide.
You do not need a revolution for that. Revolutions are messy and unpredictable. Change some electoral maps, change some demography, change some laws, allocate some budgets, jail or bankrupt a couple of people who are too dangerous - and you get a uni-party system with all the external trappings of a democracy, but without any chance of anybody on the right to ever get any power.
It's not "will be", it is. Look at New York, Portland, Seattle and so on. Surely, the left will fight among themselves. But they will destroy the Right first, and then will fight among themselves.
And yet, even they had "elections". So surely there's nothing that would prevent having "elections" between islamo-communists and trans-socialists. That's exactly my point - there's no need to cancel elections. If that's the only choice you'd ever want to have, then there's no reason to worry. If you'd like some more choice, you are already out of luck in all the blue spaces, and very well soon may be out of luck nationally. You will have plenty of elections, without any real choice.
More options
Context Copy link
The whole "don't follow illegal orders. Why am I saying this? No reason" kerfluffle was not long ago.
Just in case somebody is dense and doesn't get the message, they are now saying it openly: https://notthebee.com/article/psaki-and-guest-explain-that-following-orders-from-trump-to-investigate-mark-kelly-should-result-in-nuremberg-style-trials
And that's a solid strategy - they are saying if you act against us, we will retaliate powerfully and personally against anybody working for Trump, using the whole force of the Federal Government. It is a credible threat because that's exactly what they did in Biden years (and, partially, in Trump years too). The similar threat from the Republican side, however, does not look credible - not that they are even trying, beyond emptily yelling "lock her/him up" on social media - because they are completely unable to deliver on it. Thus, for Democrats it is a winning move - unless Republicans find any way to counter it. Which they currently don't seem to be able to.
Some of us are not actually American, you know. I'm not dense, I just don't watch American news.
I didn't mean any people in this discussion, sorry if it isn't clear. I meant people in the US that pretended this was just a theoretical lecture on existence of illegal orders and not a threat (which of course they knew it isn't theoretical and it is very much a threat).
Ah. Yeah, I thought "the message" meant your contention of "how extreme the Dems are", not the Dems' contention of "Trump's orders are illegal".
The funny thing is, it's far from certain that the current incarnation of the Democratic Party will ever get another President. There are a number of ways they could wind up out of the game and unable to carry out this threat, ranging from sticking their necks out too far with this silly brinkmanship and being beheaded, to voter base existence failure if WWIII happens.
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