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 -
This is an image of Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner's profile pic on the messaging app Kik. Notice anything?
I know the real story is supposed to be the fact that he was sending sexually explicit texts to women while married, but I can't stop laughing at the picture. It's obviously no coincidence that his hand perfectly covers the giant totenkopf on his chest. This is art.
It is certainly enjoyable to see a Democratic candidate get run through the wringer the way a Republican would, but I must confess that I find his scandals to be endearingly relatable in a way. Prediction market odds for Platner in the general are collapsing, but I think this is less of a reaction to this specific leak and more of a realization that he is the kind of candidate who will have a scandal every other month all the way up to election day, and then a scandal every other year for his entire term if he wins.
EDIT: Additional unverified reports that I cannot vouch for but would be hilarious if true.
Shocker, the dudebro veteran who was liked for basically no reason except the vibes and lack of competition without any meaningful history or vetting turns out to be a piece of shit.
Platner only really works in the sense of normal everyday man vs polished establishment dinosaur, which ironically is empowered a bit by being as shitty as the everyday dudebro stereotype. The Dems aren't at the maga level yet where the bigotry of low expectations is basically default now and low brow behavior like name calling and insults doesn't even get noticed anymore but it's getting increasingly more true. Proof that cancel culture has lost a hold on the country though, things like cheating scandals that would have been major just a few decades ago are minor blips now that only matter in so much as they might signal other worse behavior.
The standards on polite society have fallen and I'm not sure they can ever be brought back.
Im old enough to remember when a vote for George W Bush was supposed to represent a return to normalcy and civility after the endlessly trashy and corrupt behavior of the Clinton administration.
In my opinion @TracingWoodgrains has a lot chutzpah complaining about a lack of civility/norms given the active roll that he and his friends at Blocked and Reported played in dismantling those norms. TWG spent a decade knocking down trees to get at the devil and now that the wind is blowing he finds himself with nowhere to hide. BarnabyCajones, LibsOfTikTok, DataRepublican, and all the other right-coded online commentators he tried to shame, dox, or sic a Twitter-mob on over the years send their regards.
What are you talking about dude? That's like the exact opposite of the block and reported/trace/rdrama ethos. Trace hoaxed LibsOfTikTok to show that she was a credulous hack, not to dox or chase her off the internet. You're perfectly happy to see this happen when it's going after lefty institutions and frankly those are farm or often the targets, but you have this absurd and burning hatred the one time it's mildly done against your own hack pundit.
Exactly, he proved she's a real journalist, not just some tiktoker.
Wrong direction, I would suspect. Burning hatred is less about LoTT and more that Trace was "one of our guys" that took a... certain kind of turn, made a bad decision, and got treated quite poorly for it. Bad blood on both sides.
I don't think he's doxxed anyone. Shamed, certainly.
Indeed. When a scoundrel acts like a scoundrel that's just the way of things. When someone who says they're all about honesty and integrity and then treats honesty and integrity as a chump's game, that is a betrayal of principal.
...and a betrayal is always going to be worse than honest enmity
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
An ethos is not what you say you are, an ethos is how you behave in the breach.
You can't be "anti-cancel culture" while also "unmasking" your enemies and urging your followers to to go after them.
He didn't do that, it didn't happen. Taylor Lorenz is the one who doxed LibOfTikTok. If you were just some guy on the internet then this misunderstanding is reasonable but you've been holding this absurd grudge since it happened and surely you should know this.
This is the sequence of events as I recall them...
Is the implication here that hoaxing someone in close temporal proximity in time to when they are doxxed makes you also a doxxer?
No, the implication here is that "Trace" the assistant producer described as having helped expose LibsfTikTok, and TracingWoodgrains the motte poster are the same person.
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
Also, Hideous Hermaphroditical Character, same as it ever was.
I remember Trace running his prank on Libs, what'd he do with DataRepublican or Barnaby?
Barnanby and TWG were kind of the Hector and Achilles of the Atheism wars for while, and a lot of the trans, poly, and EA stuff later. Im not sure if i would characterize it as animosity, but I do recal a few times where i felt that TWG was allowing this to leak into moderation, ie letting his allies off the hook while cracking down on Barnaby and his. The LibsOfTikTok incident you know. the DataRepublican thing was was a "wont someone rid me me of this turbulent priest" type post that got memory holed after it came out that the prime suspect in the shooting of Charlie Kirk was a gay ex-Mormon who was active on furAfinnity.
Edited to Add: The way I see it "People who are upset by this" as you put it, want plausible deniability, but through both word and deed they have ensured that thier denials will appear implausible regardless of wether they are true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I'm enjoying the outrage because it was only conservative religious bigots like me who thought tattoos were trashy and anything outside of marriage was fornication and who are not going to be celebrating Pride Month who could possibly criticise people's personal choices about their bodies and their sexuality, and now all the scandal is good, old-fashioned "adultery wrong!" messaging.
How the turn tables, indeed.
More options
Context Copy link
Polite society ceased to believe it needed to offer a benefit to observing its standards. Most have noticed.
"Standards on polite society" impose noblesse oblige over the sum of societal actors who control what politeness is. Cancel culture was their effort to keep things in line.
What benefit did accepting cancellation or playing by those standards offer anyone else? Financial ruin, felony charges, and death.
So we can't have standards in this age. Much like the ozone layer, the societal machinery that enabled them has been damaged and will take some time to regenerate.
'noblesse oblige' only worked in societies which adhered to the concept of 'noblesse'. Modern society, on the other hand, does not believe that the ruling class assumed its status through hereditary privilege, consequently it does not believe either that the ruling class is obligated to anything by its status.
The ruling class in modern society assumed its status exclusively through age (and to a point, gender, but it's the vaguest possible one as it's a whole 50% of the population).
This is orthogonal to actual merit (which is generally what hereditary privilege implies), which is why the standards this class imposed as they came to power were destructive.
What merit does it take to be born to the right parents? One of the major and common failure states of hereditary privilege is that the failson of someone with merit inherits all the power and fucks everything and everyone up (generally combined with fuck-all recourse).
The ruling class in modern society has no Noblese Oblige because they are extremely mercenary. Noblese Oblige requires a recognition of the common man as part of your tribe/society/culture. A rootless cosmopolitan mercenary who feels no ties to any one society or tribe is of course not going to feel any oblige to the downtrodden.
I’d argue the real reason they lack it is their belief that they climbed up to their current status due to their own abilities and not class privilege, as opposed to the aristocracy of bygone monarchical systems whose status was ‘unearned’. Stemming from this belief is their notion that any average citizen can become one of the ruling class through ambition, hard work, merit etc. They don’t believe they have obligations to common folk because they don’t believe they are fundamentally different from them.
As much as the symbolic American story holds in our hearts and minds. the current US upper class did not climb there due to their own abilities. Very few of the Ivy League admits are there because they are some small town genius who worked their way up through merit and hard work. Most are just the sons and daughters of already powerful people. They definitely like to pretend the former is the case, but that's because being "self-made" still holds a certain cultural gravitas, and thus requires them to reframe their stories through that light. Just like how they need to reframe their origins through being the underdog, another very American conceit. I'd further postulate that a core esoteric symbol of American/Western culture is that of the Merchant. We are a society of merchants, not warriors, priests or nobles. Frontiersman/Explorers(aka Yeomen) and Merchants. And Merchant values are fundamentally mercenary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a post-import the third world belief. I definitely believed that I had obligations for my gifts and elites had obligation to society up until like 2018. Younger people just don’t understand how things use to be.
Morally I completely changed somewhere between 2018-2022.
I don't think so. If I had to pick a point in time at which the American elite had ceased to have a culture of noblesse oblige, I would go for the Vietnam War and the vast majority of GI and Silent generation elites helping their Boomer sons dodge the draft.
Are you convinced that the US used to have such a culture in the past indeed? In a nation that rejects the idea of nobility?
North of the Mason-Dixon line, see for example this Tanner Greer post about the culture of the Gilded Age WASP elite, or John Brooks' 1970 tour de force Once in Golconda about the culture of 1920's Wall Street and how it changed as a result of the Great Depression.
I always thought that the planter class in the South saw themselves as untitled nobility - they spent a lot of time banging on about how they preserved the traditional martial and chivalric virtues that the North had lost due to excessive commercialism. Although in another thread someone told me that elite draft dodging was widespread in the Confederacy, which would imply that the planter elite never actually felt the sense of noblesse oblige they claimed to.
Someone still thinks it is worth publishing the Social Register, which is what a nobiliary directory looks like in a country with no titled nobility.
Wow, how have I not heard of this one? Definitely on my list now.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem the South had was one of manpower. 4.5 million(not counting slaves) versus 22 million can cause odd problems, so it was less a draft dodge and more not having enough men to go around.
If anything, the South had too much nobelisse oblige. A number of military historians agree that the South had the better pick of generals, and a good chunk of them died fighting.
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
The kayfabe of standards is that it signalss politicians play on a level field, when the standards just end up being movable goalposts picked up and used as clubs to hit each other over the head. Similarly the MAGA and now Chapotraphouse-esque dirtbag left where calling people names and having an unkempt Real Man Image is meant to signal ability to act unbounded by protocol as if protoco was what constrained delivery instead of rank incompetence.
Neither having standards nor abandoning them is delivering on the promise of Being Real and Getting Shit Done. Being Real is a signal of original intent which is why Kamala and Newsom and Cuoma being lizardpeople with bad skinsuits stinks of disingenuity because people can't trust that these reptiles wouldn't find some sophistry to explain why actually letting in a million migrants is Good For Your Culture. But at least Being Real let the root cause for failure to Get Shit Done be assigned to the "correct" causal origin. I do wonder if everyone just keeps underestimate rank stupidity as a constraining variable. Perhaps only the actually brain damaged seek out politics which is why lawyers seem so overrepresented.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
“A nation is born Stoic and dies Epicurean.”
If only. There's precious little "dum vivimus vivamus" today.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Jay Jones has directed Virginia State Police to violate a standing court order. Do you have an update? Can you give an example of a high-profile Democratic speaker that cares?
The large majority of accusations like "they're violating a court order!" when it comes to public officials are bullshit and misunderstandings of the court order or what the response is.
There's various ways this happens.
One way is that the court order never actually said something to begin with. For example it's a mainstream belief that Andrew Jackson had defied the courts, but it couldn't possibly be true because there was nothing for him to defy
..
And even that issue was resolved before the court had reconvened, having went into recess before hearing about Georgia's desire to refuse the order.
Another way is that they simply try to achieve the same or similar goal using a different method that is not ruled against. Two major examples in recent history being the Biden admin "defying" the courts on student loan forgiveness or Trump "defying" the courts on tariffs. They might have wanted to make themselves seem tough, but the reality is that they obeyed the ruling and just chose another statute or law to argue their actions for. It might be a little scummy, but it's not disobeying the courts. Oftentimes they'll change their policy and behavior a little to match as well, the Biden admin student loan forgiveness that did get through legally was a lot less broad and Trump's tariffs have been weaponized a lot less for petty grievances.
A third way is that the case is in appeal and there's a stay (or not a stay or whatever depending on the context) and things haven't actually been hashed out to the point that defying the courts is an actual thing yet. For example, see how long the Trump admin was able to stall bringing back Kilmar Abrego Garcia from CECOT. The Trump admin never technically defied the courts, they just stalled things out.
Most likely you just don't understand the situation well and there is nothing to update on like basically every accusation that happens in this manner. If/when the courts actually start to bring up charges for disobeying an order and it's not just random Internet pundits making claims, then I'll bother with any updates.
The order is here, the motion and relevant exhibit here.
HB1525 specifically spelled out : "That the Department of State Police shall administer, enforce, and otherwise implement § 18.2-308.2:5 of the Code of Virginia from the effective date of this bill." The final judgement from the court specifically said : "The Virginia Department of State Police, and all law enforcement divisions, agencies, and officers within the Commonwealth, to include their successors or replacements in office, are hereby permanently enjoined and prohibited from administering, enforcing, or otherwise imposing upon any person the requirements of, the Act (Va. Code 18.2-308.2:5)." The state is administering the act, and informing businesses using VACheck that they must comply with the law.
There is no appeal; the case reached final judgement, despite Jay Jones' best efforts to illegally intervene before his term began.
How convenient that you never have to even examine claims that might possibly challenge your priors.
What an absolutely fascinating and specific phrase to use, when you specify charges. Is the principle here that the judge would have to use criminal contempt -- the thing he wouldn't be able to enforce against state police administration if Jones is backing them -- rather than civil contempt, before you think it's defiance of a court order? Or that a finding by the court that the state was violating the injunction doesn't count?
((I first want to apologize for not getting to your other question yet. It's kind of a complicated answer and I thought I had answered it already but I've been too busy lately to give a proper response. But I haven't forgotten about it.))
I'm not going to comment on the merits of the underlying arguments, but I'm addressing @magicalkittycat's assertion that this isn't just an AG blatantly ignoring a court order. I've looked at the docket and there's more going on here than the VCDG is claiming in their press releases. When the state filed their motion to vacate on May 4, they took the position that the order was already mooted by intervening legislation and that they were only filing the motion out of an abundance of caution. I can't read the individual filings, but the court granted an order on May 5, which I'm presuming was an administrative order reopening the case. In Virginia you have 10 days to respond to a motion. VCGA did not respond to this motion. They did not request an extension. There is nothing but radio silence on the docket. On May 27, after more than 20 days have passed, the AG directs the state police to begin enforcing the law. A day later VCGA is ready to roll with a motion to show cause. That same day, the state filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion and a hearing was scheduled for today at 1:30 pm. Yesterday, VCGA filed a response to the state's May 4 motion to vacate.
From where I sit, it looks like the VCGA deliberately failed to respond to the motion because their own motion which is heavy on bombast and light on substance asking for sanctions looks better in a press release than a boring reply brief that addresses the scintillating topic of mootness. Especially if they don't have any good arguments and know the case is dead in the water. They certainly didn't issue a press release when they filed the response yesterday. My guess is that after they moved to show cause the state objected that they weren't in a position to do so because they hadn't responded to the motion to vacate. Normally if a party opponent doesn't respond to a motion I'd get them on the horn and ask if they'd made a mistake or need more time, and if I went straight to a judge the judge might cut them some slack. I don't know what attempts the state made here, but if their position was that a vacation wasn't necessary then it could undermine their argument if they go too far out of their way to seek a court order, like scheduling a hearing, for example.
So things are pretty clear when it's crickets for three weeks and as soon as enforcement begins the plaintiff is ready to go with a show cause motion the next day. I don't know if the hearing scheduled for today was on the show cause motion or just on the objection. Since the plaintiffs filed their response to the May 4 motion after the hearing was scheduled, the hearing may have just been on the objection, and the parties may have worked out among themselves that they could cancel it if the plaintiffs filed a response.
I want to refrain from looking at the merits of this case, but based on VCGA's behavior, they probably aren't great for them. At least, this isn't the way one acts in front of a court when they have a winnable case. If they had responded to the original motion and the court held a hearing and determined that the order was still in effect, I'd support your position that the AG is acting in bad faith and deliberately disobeying it. It's quite a different thing if the AG takes a position that a motion isn't necessary but gives you the opportunity to have your day in court anyway, and your response is to ignore him and then try to get sanctions later. This is the kind of behavior that pisses off judges.
Injunction still active after today's hearing. The judge and threatened contempt for any further violations, but no contempt finding. VCheck has supposedly removed the requirement.
More options
Context Copy link
I will try to respond to this more in depth later, but :
Where are you getting this rule? The only place I can find 10 days specific isthe Virginia Supreme Court; this case is operating at the Lynchburg Circuit court level, and Virginia circuit courts look to range from having long periods or depending on hearing days or both for normal rulings (eg 14 days before the next hearing Friday for Fairfax) , and then high-complication ruling schedules are entirely up to the judge since they can set a response schedule of their own.
This seems wildly incompatible with Walker v. Birmingham. Doubly so when a) the new law hasn’t gone into effect yet, and b) it literally said to enforce the enjoined statute, but even presuming it did genuinely moot the case, that still doesn’t automatically invalidate an injunction.
More options
Context Copy link
I definitely agree that stalling things out and slow walking your actions can be scummy behavior, but whether or not that fits contempt of court can be highly contextual and dependent on the ground level specifics.
This falls into the third type of example I gave in the original comment! The Trump admin slow walked the return of Abrego Garcia for months. Maybe we can argue that it's contempt from the spirit of the law and were behaving in a scummy manner, but they never once committed any actually legal contempt. You are allowed to draw out a case even if you think you will probably lose, because you might win and you can exercise a full fight.
Same thing, they're allowed to slow walk or whatever if they want (within some amount of behavior obviously), but we can also agree it's scummy to try to lie and claim the AG is in contempr when you just ignored them.
To be clear, my argument that it isn't contempt isn't that the plaintiffs did something scummy, but that intervening legislation mooted the order. Suppose A sues B because B built a structure that doesn't conform to setback requirements in the zoning ordinance, and the court issues and order that B demolish the structure within 90 days. If within that 90 days the municipality changes the zoning ordinance so that the structure now conforms to the setback requirements, the issue is mooted. You can ask that the court vacate the order, but as a strategic matter it's probably better to ignore it since there's no reason to incur additional legal fees if you don't have to. Wait for A to sue you for contempt and lose; no judge is going to impose sanctions in a case like that.
The one thing I will say about the plaintiff's failure to respond is that, theoretically at least, their non-response turned the state's motion into an unopposed motion, and while there's no mechanism akin to a default, they could have just submitted it to the court for a judge's signature, and he could have granted it regardless of the merits of the case. Realistically the judge will probably schedule a hearing, and only automatically grant the motion if the plaintiff fails to respond after being noticed, but it is something that can happen. Most of the unopposed motions I file, including motions for summary judgment that get us out of a case entirely, simply go to the judge without a hearing. But those are motions where the opponent has already told us they don't plan on opposing it, because most lawyers actually respond to our motions, and even if they don't, we deal with the same lawyers all the time and prefer to maintain cordial relations with them. But I'd have no problem being aggressive if it's some out of state firm that's being dickish and I don't care how much I piss them off.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If he's actually violating a court order and doesn't fall into one of the various reasons for why such accusations are often bullshit then we can wait and see the contempt of court charges that eventually get brought.
Spoiler, it probably won't happen. Not because of unfair courts, but because state officials actually defying the court is extremely rare and almost every accusation whether against the right or the left is bullshit for some reason or another. There are tons of weird technicalities and abilities to delay and burdens of proof and etc etc etc whatever shit that go into it and generally it's "you don't actually understand the law" or "you don't actually understand what's going on in the case" or "you don't actually understand what is happening on the ground level to begin with and there has been no contempt" and other such explanations.
Yeah it's pretty nice, and convenient, for me that I live in a society where public officials don't typically disobey the court and basically every single accusation that they have is a misunderstanding of something by idiots.
Has he been found in contempt of court either civil or criminal in any way yet? If that has happened, I would presume you would actually say so.
Not "he has been accused of it by political opponents". Or "the judge has weighed in on the possibility" or anything like that. Has he been found in contempt of court?
Does his being found in contempt of court factually change whether he violated a court's ruling?
If not, what purpose does the question serve other than as a deflection to addressing the claims of fact presented and disputed by gattsuru? You are certainly appealing to vague possibilities ('very rare', 'weird technicalities' 'basically every single accusation... is a misunderstanding of something by idiots'), but you're not actually disputing the claims presented by gattsuru. You're not even claiming that your language of frequency even applies to this case- even if corruption of this sort is very rare, that has no bearing on a case that can be drawing attention for being rare. It would be akin to disputing accusations of medical malpractice because most doctors don't commit medical malpractice. The appeal to statistical rarity is irrelevant if the challenge is based on a dependent rather than independent factor.
Gattsuru is making a direct position on a matter of laws and facts here. You seem to disagree. On what grounds that apply to this case? What is gattsuru's misunderstanding in this matter? What is the weird technicality that applies to this case law?
No but being found in contempt of court is a pretty solid piece of evidence he did it, whereas not being found in contempt of court is a pretty solid piece (although not as solid in this direction) that it hasn't happened. The court system is generally reliable.
Now the court system is also slow and it could be that we are just in the period between contempt happening and contempt being found by the courts, which in that case I can update when it happens instead of speculating on a situation where most accusations are bullshit.
Two things are rare.
Officials defying the court is rare
Layman accusations that an official denied the court being true is also rare.
The rarity of the 2nd does apply here, because he's making an accusation that a public official defied the court. But normally such accusations are not true! I covered numerous examples of how this happens in my comment beforehand.
The challenges themselves being true is statistically rare!
It's like an accused drunk arguing the breathalyzer was faulty. That does happen sometimes (it's probably way more common than officials in contempt of court) and it's probably more likely in cases where the accused drunk contests the charges. But it is still also true that the large large majority of the time the accused drunk contests the charges, the breathalyzer was properly working.
So 1. "The breathalyzer actually being faulty in general is rare" and 2. "The breathalyzer actually being faulty when contested is rare" are both true statements! And a person saying "no but my case is special and it was faulty" can be generally dismissed until/unless they can show otherwise.
In court showing otherwise is pretty simple. Has he been found in contempt?
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
More options
Context Copy link