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 -
The SPLC has been federally indicted on six counts of wire fraud, four counts of false statements to a federally insured bank, and one count of conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. And the charges were filed in the Middle District of Alabama. 14-page indictment PDF here.
In brief, the indictment alleges that the SPLC raised money under false pretenses by claiming to fight right-wing extremism, instead funding extremist informants with roughly $3 million dollars of donor money. The informants included members of the KKK and an organizer of the infamous Charlottesville unite the right fiasco. They allegedly did this using illegal means, creating fictitious cutouts and lying to banks to open phony bank accounts to obscure the flow of funds from the SPLC to their informants.
I can't help but feel some schadenfreude here - "no one is above the law" also applies to left-wing NGOs who think they can larp as spies. They even named one of their cutouts Center Investigative Agency... It seems like they flew very close to the sun thinking that their brand and political affiliation would shield them from scrutiny. Project Veritas got a lot more heat for doing a lot less.
From a layman's perspective the indictment seems pretty compelling but I'd be curious to hear what the legal commentators here think. Of course this is only one side of the argument, but those statements to the bank in particular seem quite incriminating. Also, what exactly would be the consequences for the SPLC if the DOJ succeeds on some or all counts?
This is why I voted for Trump. Thé SPLC is my enemy, and driving them out of the face of the earth is a good thing.
I have two objections. One is that lawfare contributes to a decline in civility. Naturally, the Democrats have done a lot of lawfare against Trump, so you might say turnaround is fair. But it will also be a further step of escalation. At the moment, Democrats and MAGA are not yet in a state of total war against each other. Heck, even Iran and Israel are not in that stage. Unlike chess, neither war nor the culture war are zero sum games where hurting your enemy and helping your side are identical.
Every move in the culture war has two separate properties, one how much it brings your side closer to their objectives and one how much it escalates the conflict. Lawfare did not work particularly well against Trump. My second objection is that it will likely not work particularly well against the SPLC. So Trump's move will simply further normalize wasting taxpayer money to harass political opponents in cases which will result in not guilty verdicts.
Organizations like the SPLC, the Proud Boys and so forth exist because what they do is mostly legal and significant fractions of the population support them. Even if by some miracle Trump secures a victory against the SPLC and a few leaders go to prison for donation fraud, this will not be a major victory. The SJ left will not shrug and say "they destroyed the SPLC, too bad that nobody is keeping tabs on the far right now". They will simply found a new organization, and hire the former employees with all their informer contacts.
Yes. As I and many others have pointed out an innumerable number of times over the last decade, at the time when such observations might have done some good if people were willing to listen.
"the Democrats have done a lot of lawfare against Trump" is an interesting phrase.
In the abstract, if party A engages in some minimal level of lawfare against party B, I think you would agree that it's possible that the correct response is for party B to object, but otherwise continue their business as before. If party A continues to unilaterally escalate the level of lawfare, do you think there is a level at which it is reasonable for Party B to engage in lawfare back?
If you do not think there is a level at which engaging in reciprocal lawfare is justified, then lawfare must be a very bad thing indeed. What alternative consequences should be imposed on Party A for their engagement in this very bad behavior?
If you do think there is a level at which engaging in reciprocal lawfare is justified, what is that level and why are you confident that we have not already reached it? And in this branch is why I think "The Democrats have done a lot of lawfare against Trump" is an interesting phrase.
What is "lawfare"? Does it have a commonly-understood, rigorously-applied definition? You claim the Democrats have "done a lot of lawfare against Trump"; was this lawfare generally recognized as such at the time? If not, was it recognized at some later time preceding, to put it delicately, five minutes ago? Can you name specific incidents where the democrats used lawfare against Trump, where you yourself recognized it as lawfare at the time? Can you show how the awareness of the existence of lawfare generated sufficient internal resistance from within the blue sphere to impede further such efforts?
Suppose I object in principle to lawfare, and want to see less of it. You are telling me that "the Democrats have done a lot of lawfare against Trump". My recollection is that this is not a sentiment Blues were willing to endorse when the lawfare in question was actually happening, which leads me to suspect that the reason Blues are willing to endorse it now is because they're on the wrong end of it. If we observably get closer to consensus that lawfare is actually a problem when my side reciprocates, why should I accept an argument that my side should refrain from reciprocating?
How deep does this newfound enlightenment go? Are the journalist and academic classes, the bureaucracy and the Democratic party itself willing to admit that "the democrats have done a lot of lawfare against Trump", or is hearing it from pseudoAnons in an irrelevant corner of the internet supposed to be sufficient? If this is a bad response, what other response do you believe would be more productive?
The last several years are best modelled as a massive, distributed search for ways to hurt the outgroup as badly as possible without getting in too much trouble.
The state of total war between the tribes is not inevitable, but it is much more likely than other outcomes. You are correct to recognize that this is an escalation spiral. Unfortunately, actually breaking out of an escalation spiral requires considerably more than the statement "we are in an escalation spiral".
How much waste of taxpayer money to harass political opponents is currently happening, and how much has happened in the past decade?
Of course they will. The win here isn't jailing SPLC leadership or shutting down the org. It's probably better for me if they continue exactly as they have indefinitely!
It is better to consider the SPLC not as an organization, but as a particular instantiation of a cluster of political tactics. The proper goal here is not to maximally-suppress this particular cluster, but rather to suppress the tactic in general. When the SPLC's set of tactics is deployed in the future, I and hopefully others will point out how such tactics have been proven to work in the past, and argue that they should not be allowed to operate in the future. I will argue that the SPLC was for decades running awarded extreme levels of deference and influence while operating as a socially-corrosive grift, and as a consequence neither it nor its replacements should be given the benefit of the doubt. To arguments that it's different this time because it's a new organization, I will simply respond as you have here: it's a new coat of paint on the same old machine; it was a grift that Blues were willfully blind to before, and it will still be a grift that Blues are willfully blind to in the future.
This works better the more harm can be inflicted on the SPLC now; as we've seen with Trump's 34 felony convictions, the point is at the end of the day to generate legible, mimetically-fit tokens. Power flows from such things, and power is necessary.
The more fruitful discussion, it seems to me, is whether the viewpoint underpinning the above is wrong. One could argue that the SPLC was not a grift, that they were performing socially-useful work, that their tactics and policies were effective and necessary, that they and the money donated to them made the world a better place.
I note that no one seems all that interested in making such a case. It seems to me that this is because most here, even the Blues, understand that such an argument would not be sustainable, given the facts, but perhaps that assessment is wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link