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 -
You think a bank robber stealing money is a crime "more paltry" than posting text-to-vote election memes? This is disqualifying for your moral judgment.
Right, when the government arrests you for sedition, they're not violating your 1A rights, because they technically charged you with sedition, not speech.
Yes, it is paltry in the exact sense that OP used the term paltry: In the context of the extent of harm caused. There were something like 140 million votes cast for President in 2016. In contrast, total cash deposits in the banking system totals hundreds of billions of dollars, if not more. But if you want to compare harms, consider this: If my vote is annulled in some manner, that is a harm that can never be remedied, even if the perpetrator is caught. That is not the case re theft of my bank deposit.
Edit: But to be clear, the point is that if the paltriness is not a reason to refrain from prosecuting a bank robber, why should it be a reason to refrain from prosecuting this guy?
What does this have to do with the issue? OP made a claim about the legal basis for the conviction, and I simply pointed out that the amount of harm caused was not an element of the crime, and hence is irrelevant to the legal basis of the conviction. Whether the actions in question were protected by the First Amendment is a completely different issue, but is similar in this respect: The amount of harm caused is also irrelevant to whether his actions constituted protected speech.
"The legal basis" and "the crime" are completely made-up. These theories didn't exist before. If the government passes a law declaring pro-China sentiment equivalent to treason, I'm not going to take at face-value theories about this isn't chilling because "the First Amendment is a completely different issue". This is a recipe for negating the First Amendment: your speech isn't protected, because it {caused harm}.
Ricky's memes did not annul any votes and could not have annulled any votes.
No, they are neither new or made up. Laws re interfering with voting have been on the books forever. This guy just happens to have come up with a new way to violate the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link