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 -
[removed, overly emotional]
I think Trump has a point, that arguing the specifics seems irrelevant to me, when the larger issue is unfair treatment. Unfortunately, it's probably impossible to persuade anyone of this to people who consider Trump to be a singular threat.
I mean, Re: Hillary, destruction of evidence is a pretty automatic charge. Can you imagine Trump not being charged with it? Not to mention the 1001 charges (also apparently seen here, according to reporting), and the OIG report quoted FBI agents who were dumbstruck as to why such charges weren't brought against folks, because they were dead-to-rights. But nope; that stuff is reserved for the likes of Flynn and Trump... the folks who need to be removed.
Possibly more interesting for actual culture war analysis is just observing the public narrative shift. Back in the days before it was fashionable to prosecute Trump and anyone related to Trump, when the possible charges were against Hillary, it was a grave and serious thing to prosecute politicians, especially when they had possible elections in front of them. "That's the stuff of banana republics!" they said. "That's, like, what Putin does!" they said. It was "deeply dangerous for democracy". Whether or not our democracy was legitimate was supposedly hanging in the balance, depending upon whether their preferred candidate was charged with a crime. You don't hear that anymore. For good or for bad, fair and just or unfair and unjust, it's a change in the narrative. Whether this change can be easily flip-flopped on in another 5-10 years... or whether it will be persistent, possibly leading to endless tit-for-tat, I don't know.
Do you have any theories for why this changed? Were there any chants at political rallies or something agitating for this shift in norms?
Why the assumption it was driven bottom up? The most obvious explanation seems to be that the establishment wanted to protect Clinton and now wants to go after Trump.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking about where this apparent shift came from.
But why suggest chants at rallies as the mechanism for change, or that the change in messaging implies a shift in values rather being an expression of current objectives?
That was one theory but I'm open to others, hence the question. Just because I don't mention other explanations doesn't mean I've already dismissed them as possibilities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ah yes, the gotcha. It's the right's fault, so your observation is invalid. Sorry, but I can acknowledge that the right certainly played a significant part in chipping away at the norm... while also acknowledging that the observation remains true. In the before days, one could at least sit back and say, "There are some crazy righties chanting 'lock her up', but we're a serious democracy which doesn't prosecute politicians on questionable charges, and there are serious people who will ensure that we stay that way." I am on record as one of those people, prior to Trump's election, prior to the reality become clear to everyone that he didn't try to force through some charges. (As an aside, has there ever been a single piece of reporting along the lines of, "We're giving an exclusive account of the breathtaking meetings in which Donald Trump applied consistent pressure to produce a prosecution, but was rebuffed by so-and-so"?)
At the same time, one can also sit back and say, "It turns out that many people who said they were serious people who would ensure that we're a serious democracy which doesn't prosecute politicians on questionable charges... are now cheering on efforts to prosecute politicians on questionable charges, so long as they're the politicians they don't like."
I agree that the public statements are a problem, even in the absence of substantial actions. One possible world we could have ended up in is a world where dems chant "lock him up" at rallies, but then dem politicians still refrain from pushing questionable charges once in office. It might have been a weird state of affairs; maybe the chants would continue to be tit-for-tat, but serious people would ensure that reality stays serious alongside it. In that world, do the chants eventually go away? Do they persist, like how in many other domains, the public chants and pushes both sides' politicians for things that those politicians continually reject actually doing? Man, I don't know. I wouldn't like it, but I don't know how it would go. Regardless, we are no longer in that possible timeline. We're in a different one.
I'm not denying your observation, I actually think it's probably true though there are too many variables to control for conclusively. I also agree with you that at least some of the current charges against Trump are questionable (Stormy Daniels hush-money payment is the prime example).
Regardless, I was curious about the progeny of this apparent shift that you describe. Would it be fair to characterize the "lock her up" and "because you'd be in jail" comments as just bloviating on Trump's part? The fact that there's no evidence that Trump tried to push for any prosecution against Clinton while he was in office supports this. Even so, the fact this bloviating was such irresistible ambrosia for his base indicates it was tapping on some deep-seated desire among at least some Americans to prosecute and jail politicians from the other side. Would you agree?
At that point it's an interesting question how much we can blame this on a sort of "lab leak", a meme that went unintentionally viral.
I already said that the right started the chanting. Please speak plainly.
Sorry, I don't know which part is confusing. You described a shift in norms about how seriously the prospect of prosecuting politicians used to be treated. I was asking about what you thought contributed to this shift, including asking what you thought the popularity of the "lock her up" chant indicated (e.g. did it contribute towards causing the shift or is it the symptom of something else? etc). Let me know if that makes sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously. Also it's fun to say "Lock Her Up!" It's a good chant. But Trump did nothing to actually lock her up, so none of that justifies actual legal moves against Trump by Democrats in power.
Sure, I never said otherwise. Assuming the shift @ControlsFreak describes is real, I was curious about how it came about. Would you agree that the frequency of the chant contributed something to moving the overton window?
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
I mean, it would lead to endless tit-for-tat only as long as supplies of crimes last. I mean, you could make it last a long time by changing laws, but you'd have to put a bunch of additional work in. Absent a new wave of ex-post-facto laws or blatant procedure prosecutions, honestly my first reaction is "yes, good." Let justice reign, etc.
Nah, we've got plenty of laws. Especially when people are pushing ideas like, "Campaign finance laws make it illegal to talk to foreigners," trying to resurrect the Logan Act, etc.
Can I introduce you to an indictment from New York County?
Through the last eight years or so, with the left-leaning friends I have in the real world, I've had discussions about this possible politician crime or that possible politician crime. There have been many such times where they were wound up about how you could totally plausibly read the law in a way that totally plausibly gets at so-and-so. Often, I just poke at the implications of their broad reading, especially given the reality of political life. When they start to see just how broadly this shit could be construed if we walk down that path, then I drop, "Is this something that you really value enough to 'let justice reign' equally on both sides' politicians?" And some issues might actually be. Most of them have not been. Most of the time, they realize, "Actually, that would probably have some pretty bad effects and barely bring any real benefit to society."
More options
Context Copy link
The supply of crimes will never run out; there's enough laws you can find a crime for anyone who does anything significant if you're willing to stretch them enough. The idea is there won't be endless tit-for-tat because the current people doing the prosecution expect to remain in power permanently partially as a result of doing so. Full banana republic style.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link