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 -
Trump Indicted: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/30/donald-trump-indicted-in-hush-money-payment-case.html
This is a major enough story that I think it goes beyond needing more than just a link.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis will not assist with extradition: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/desantis-trump-charges-are-un-american-says-florida-will-not-assist-in-extradition-request-by-manhattan
Smart, correct move by DeSantis to stand up for Trump. Huge overlap between their supporters. A state indictment. What the left really wanted was a federal one. And related to taxes, Jan 6th, Russia, etc. As some have joked, this is the equivalent of being arrested for removing a Mattress label or jay walking. Trump will likely serve no jail time and comes out stronger and his supporters emboldened by the obvious power play by the left, the exact opposite of what you want to happen if you want trump to lose.
I thought it was a good move as well, but more from a White Elephant gift perspective. In costs DeSantis little/nothing if Trump voluntarily goes to New York, since he said he was willing to help, it costs DeSantis personally little if Trump 'accepts' the help because the person breaking the law by not going to New York is Trump not Destanis, but it lets Trump incur huge costs (legal/political) if Trump is 'on the run' by taking the offer even as it puts Trump in debt to DeSantis. In the context of Trump vs DeSantis, all of these work to DeSantis's own advantage, as either it frames Trump as either willingly going to New York, or Trump in debt to DeSantis while dealing with the fallout of not going to New York.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it helps trump win the nomination which means Dems more likely hold power in 24.
More options
Context Copy link
I said he would do that earlier here and it’s the correct decision. Or I said it to a lawyer friend of mine maybe both. The issue is New York could refuse to extradite to Florida in the future but my guess is both sides decide to call this a one off case. Both sides would have issues with serious criminals running off to the other state.
IIRC I've seen discussion here about states issuing non-extradition warrants as, effectively, exile. It allows them to re-arrest criminals that stay in-state, but not shoulder the cost of trials or prison if they just go elsewhere. I don't know what the relative rates of such things are, but I think there are cases in which "running off to another state" is actually a desired result.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd guess the flow would be mostly one-way since only one state (well, one major city in the state) has made it policy to prosecute many crimes more lightly or not at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Rachel Vindman: https://twitter.com/natsechobbyist/status/1641585602146496518
Seriously what the fuck is it with this stuff? In what conceivable way is him saying he won't extradite Trump "anti semitic"?
Anyone who dislikes Soros is an antisemite, as far as these people are concerned.
The irony of Trump being Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel (a real thing that actually happens!) escapes these people. Trump is surely one of the least anti-semitic people of all time. He signed a bunch of hate-crime laws for Jews. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He gave eulogies to the bygone era of Israeli dominance of the US congress:
Really, people should be accusing the people indicting him of being anti-semitic.
That Tweet was directed at DeSantis, not Trump. And it's possible for Trump to be philosemitic while someone supporting him is antisemitic.
More options
Context Copy link
Not to mention his son-in-law, who he appointed as a senior adviser, is Jewish.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Her husband really hates the first amendment. They seem like two peas in a pod.
More options
Context Copy link
He mentioned Soros, who is Jewish. Anti-semitic conspiracy theorists on /pol/ also don't like Soros, so complaining about him must mean DeSantis is dogwhistling to them. Unlike when people complain about the Koch brothers or Peter Thiel, which is just expressing justifiable anger at billionaires subverting our democracy.
On a largely unrelated note, it just occurred to me that the whole "vampire harvesting the blood of the young" smear directed at Peter Thiel (for the offense of investing in medical research companies that did longevity research investigating the thing where mice given blood transplants live longer) would 100% have been pattern-matched as "anti-semitic blood libel" if he was Jewish. Somehow I never made that connection before. Here's a list of articles I had saved for those unfamiliar:
Peter Thiel Is Interested in Harvesting the Blood of the Young - Gawker
Billionaire Peter Thiel thinks young people’s blood can keep him young forever - Raw Story
Peter Thiel Isn't the First to Think Young People's Blood Will Make Him Immortal - The Daily Beast
Peter Thiel is Very, Very Interested in Young People's Blood - Inc
The Blood of Young People Won’t Help Peter Thiel Fight Death - Vice
Hey, Silicon Valley: you might not want to inject yourself with the blood of the young just yet - Vox
Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself with Young People's Blood - Vanity Fair
Is Peter Thiel a Vampire? - New Republic
Reminds me of the opposite case where a caller-in of the LBC radio show was called anti semitic for using the word “globalist” despite using it to describe Rishi Sunak.
More options
Context Copy link
It's almost the mirror image of the adrenochrome theory.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you don't let Jewish NGOs buy up your legal system and manipulate your elections by prosecuting anyone resisting it's anti-Semitic don't ya know?
I find this comment ironic given all the other people insisting that banging a gong about the evil globalist George Soros is totally not anti-Semitic at all.
This comment is also low effort and makes inflammatory claims without evidence, and contributes nothing to the discussion. If you personally want to bang a gong about the evil globalist George Soros, you need to put actual effort into articulating your problem with him, or explain all these "Jewish NGOs buying up our legal systems and manipulating our elections."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Soros is a non-American socialist known for betting against countries’ currencies and reaping huge paydays. The right and the red tribe believe he’s trying to bring down America and the dollar by backing anti-arrest, anti-police DA’s to make crime (organized and otherwise) rampant. The fact that he’s Jewish should never be considered anything but a non-sequitur.
More options
Context Copy link
INAL but my understanding is that this is not strictly true. As this is a state rather than federal indictment, law enforcement in Florida could simply decline to exercise the warrant and there would be little if anything that the DA in Manhattan could do about it.
Strictly speaking, since 1987 state (and territory, etc) extradition warrants can be compelled by the federal courts; there are only a small handful of valid reasons to reject one (mostly paperwork errors or clear cases of mistaken identity), none likely to be usable here.
In practice, this means that the harmed party (who?) could sue in federal court for a writ of mandamus, which would resolve in a year or so.
Ah yes 1987... a year of great constitutional import when many questions about state and federal powers were resolved via a grand constitutional convention /sarc.
I have no idea why people treat these judicial precedents as anything but worthless paper. The state of California is litterally openly running a drug cartel with itself exercising a monopoly on illegal cannabis dealing within the state, collecting tribute form lower order kingpins violating federal law... and we're supposed to pretend our legal system operates on any principle except might makes right, and shamelessness?
If a governor even had federal agents arrested and cut loose before they could enforce warrants do you really think there's anywhere near enough political will to send troops and start a contitutional crisis?
Section 2 of Article IV of the US Constitution (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#4) says
A plain-and-simple reading of that seems to agree that the Florida can't refuse the extradition. But there will be centuries case law working out the precise procedural details of how it has to happen. Apparently in 1987 one of the corner-cases got tweaked.
So when Alabama demands Governor Gavin Newsom to be extradited as the Kingpin in the case of a low level drug smuggler bring weed into the state that was "Legally" purchased in California... what do you expect to happen?
A procedural tar-pit.
The procedural rules are put in place precisely because the bare words of the constitution would allow that kind of shit you name. This is why people pay attention to precedent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's wiggle room. Trump has never been in New York since being charged, so he did not flee from New York. I don't think the courts would buy that, but it's not much of a stretch.
Yeah, I have no idea what the real law of the land is. Ask the real lawyers.
The point is that the 1987 decision upthread is clearly not some activist reach inventing constitutional rules out of whole cloth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is another way of saying Florida need not assist right away (DeSantis choose his words carefully).
It is a moot issue. Trump wants the imagery.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think he has a choice. It would crush his presidential aspirations.
And there are already serious constitutional questions with this.
More options
Context Copy link
He didn't say "refuse", he said "not assist".
The ability to slow-walk everything while still technically fulfilling legal compliance was used by the Deep State to great effect during Trump's presidency; DeSantis is just resolving to give them a taste of their own medicine.
The headline says refuse, I grant you, but, well, that's what you get for only reading the headline.
Bingo. "Not assist" implies that state resources may not be expended (which might still technically violate the Constitution) but does not imply they'll resist attempts to extradite if NY wants to send people to do it.
It puts the onus on NY to either send people to do it on their dime or sue Florida (again on their dime) to try and force the issue.
In a sense, a test of how badly they ACTUALLY want Trump vs. just signalling about it.
Fuck I’m bored. I hope Florida cops pull their guns on nyc cops and tell them to leave. That would entertaining and I believe appropriate.
I'm relatively worried that we end up with some Boomer fudds in golf outfits getting gunned down in an incredibly ill-advised standoff at Mar-a-Lago.
That would be just about the funniest inciting event for kicking off CivWar II.
Ya it would be funny. Curious are we on the same side or do I got to try and kill you in CivWar 2?
If we already lived in AI world and I could upload myself to cloud this would actually be kind of fun. Just download myself back to new meat husks when I die in CivWar2.
I take the Ent position in any hot civil war.
Don't fuck with my trees and we'll be fine.
Of course, I can also predict which side is most likely to overstep and try to goad me into fighting back, but I've positioned myself such that that side is very far away from me and so I probably wouldn't have to interact with them.
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
If you're really powerful and the charge is trifling, the prosecutor and defendant + lawyers ink out a deal that avoids any jail time. In some cases, no media coverage either. Likely Trump sees no jail time and charges dropped or settled, so it does not matter if DeSantis is providing false hope or not: he gets all the upside of capturing some of Trump's voters and no downside from being wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
Well there's always one way, but he's going to need more help than the last time someone tried it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link