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 whole substance of the underlying indictment argument is that Trump intended to commit a federal crime and by dint of that crime NYS can charge a separate crime. Of course, no federal prosecutor has attempted to bring that crime.
What that means is that NYS is effectively trying to enforce federal law in substance if not in name. That is what OP was saying.
Once again, this is entirely different from your California example. It would be akin to California saying “We think defendant violated Texas law; despite Texas never charging him or finding him guilty we are going to say it was a violation of Texas law and because we say it is a violation of Texas law we can now bring this separate California charge.”
That is not normal. Not even close.
It raises many questions. For example, if there are questions as to what is in fact Texas law (the defendant could say the law is Y, California could say X — does California court get to determine what is Texas law; what if there are constitutional issues with the Texas law — does a California court get to decide those matters). Once again, this is entirely different from a situation where another forum has adjudicated a matter under that forum’s law.
No, OP was saying that the state was charging a violation of Federal law, which of course WOULD BE illegitimate were that the case. But it isn't.
Yes. But a CA court's decision re TX law is not binding on TX courts, while a TX court's decision re TX law is binding on CA courts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link