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 -
Zohran Mamdani is threatening to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the UN in September
18 USC 878 makes it a federal crime to threaten to imprison any foreign head of state, which suggests that the DOJ has grounds to take action against Mamdani here. This would, of course, cause absolutely nuclear levels of insanity to erupt, especially since I have very little faith in the media not to frame it as "Fascist Trump arrests political rival". But also, it's also extremely unlikely that there will be an actual attempt to arrest Netanyahu, since that would require the NYPD to tangle with the United States Secret Service. All of this seems obvious to me, which means it must be obvious to Mamdani, which raises the question, what is his play here? Even the suggestion that the city that hosts the UN would seriously consider arresting guests of the UN should be insanely problematic.
What Mandami has done so far doesn't rise to the level of a threat. The article says he's "discussing" it. If these discussions actually happen, his law department will tell him "LOL no you can't do that". It's just hot air until he gives the order. And unless he has some handpicked fanatics in the NYPD, NYPD won't challenge the Secret Service even if he does.
I think the implication is "if my lawyers say I can" is roughly the same as "in Minecraft". I'm not sure I buy it completely here, but "I'm going to murder [person] if my lawyers say I can" does seem dumb enough to express such an intent.
I would give Mamdani leeway for the exact same reason I would give Netanyahu leeway: People who serve executive functions in government need to be able to discuss, debate, and effectuate public policies without the constant threat of prosecution by their political enemies. You can always look at a controversial prime minister, president, big city mayor, etc. and twist something he's done into an arguable crime (or war crime). (Well, not always, but still.)
To be sure, I'm willing to make an exception for extremely egregious behavior, but of Netanyahu, Trump, Mamdani, etc., none of them have come anywhere near doing anything which would justify prosecution. Partisan hacks from both sides might say otherwise, but that's exactly the point. We don't want partisan hacks running around pursuing political prosecutions.
I hope Trump announces that he's asked the DOJ to investigate whether Mamdani can be prosecuted for violating 18 USC 878 and afterwards everyone shuts up.
A city mayor with no authority to conduct foreign relations proposing the arrest of an internationally protected person in violation of both US federal law and a UN treaty that the US is party to does not seem to me to be a simple "discussion of public policy". It feels like a line has been crossed quite decisively.
Mamdani feels like he is trying to run NYC as a sovereign city-state and doesn't want to explicitly acknowledge the reality that he is legally required to defer to the authority of higher political entities. It really shows here, where his discussion of why he won't actually do the arrest mentions "the laws here in New York City." New York City doesn't have a law about this! This feels very much like a phrasing deliberately chosen to avoid acknowledging that New York City is under the political authority of the United States.
As much as I hate Mamdani (that's actually an understatement -- I think Mamdani is a vile contemptible human being) I would have to disagree with this. If the Trump Administration got an indictment of Mamdani and I were the assigned federal judge, I would dismiss the indictment. I'm not sure what legal doctrine I would hang my hat on, but the basic idea is that this sort of political trash-talking is protected.
No, you don't understand. It's good and OK when trump does it, but it's bad and norms violating when mamdani does it, because that's why.
for real though, the level of motivated reasoning on this one is interesting to see; how some plainly stated threats from the executive need to be carefully considered because of the context, and a virtue signaling hedge from a mayor is a violation that needs to be punished with the full force of the state.
I'm not sure I see your point here, but I certainly concede that there are partisan hacks on both sides. By "partisan hack," I mean someone who is outraged by X when it's done by the other tribe but defends a very similar (or far worse) X' when it's done by someone from his own tribe.
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