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 Indictment
Famously, Caesar crossed the rubicon with his army in contradiction to the law and effectively overthrew the republic. What some may not recall is that Caesar was faced with open insurrection by crossing the Rubicon with the XIII legion or likely being tried for treason anyhow. In effect, Caesar had little choice. Win or die. Not playing meant die.
Many democrats believe Trump led an insurrection. Now those same Democrats are bringing indictments again Trump that if successful means he may spend the rest of his natural life largely in jail. Yet Trump is also the likely Republican candidate.
Will Trump have his own rubicon moment? Probably not and probably wouldn’t succeed.
But this is yet another reason why prosecution was imprudent.
Trump had his Rubicon moment on January 6, and he turned away from Rome. That ship has sailed for him, though seeing the end result future candidates may act differently when the next opportunity presents itself.
More options
Context Copy link
Caesar was a popular general who'd spent the last decade plundering Western Europe and enslaving Gauls by the thousand. He was the richest man in all of Rome, but that doesn't even do it justice because he was rich beyond modern comprehension. As the general who'd conquered all of what is now France, about 20% of the spoils of the Gallic wars went straight into his pocket. His army was loyal to him above the Republic because he had made them all rich, too. Some of the armies the Republic sent against him defected to his side because they were jealous of how rich Caesar's legions were. He once bribed a legion by promising to give each man his own Gallic slave. When the Senate turned on him he was in the process of serving as the governor of three provinces for a whopping ten-year term, which he was 7-8 years into. To put that in perspective, those three provinces that Caesar was ruling over were: all of modern France, a big chunk of what is now northern Italy, and a big chunk of the Balkans.
Trump doesn't even have an army, let alone an army comparable to the one that answers to the President. He isn't in a position of any political or military power, unlike Caesar who was a proconsul and therefore both a governor and general. He isn't even particularly rich. The comparison just isn't there. What's he going to do, defeat the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a set piece battle? Him and what army?
More options
Context Copy link
In 2016, were you asking if Hillary was about to have her own Rubicon moment?
Wow, I’m starting to understand why Fox hosts enjoy bringing her up. Unlimited ammunition.
These are both stupid parallels. Other commenters have covered the reasons why our modern Caesars aren’t war heroes steering armies via a spoils system, so I’ll go for a different tactic. I hereby announce my candidacy for President of the United States. I have the full backing of the Game Theory Party, and I expect no disruptive charges while I am running. Also, I expect one million dollars on my desk by next week.
We probably should have given how the Clinton Campaign laundered the Steele Dossier through the intelligence services to launch fraudulent investigations into Trump and his administration, essentially getting a mulligan on the election and forestalling his policy goals for 4 years.
Turns out if the Pretorian Guard are loyal to you, it barely matters who the Emperor is.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, famously Hillary was never charged and so had nothing to fear.
More options
Context Copy link
This is of course a very silly post. Hillary didn’t already create a riot when she lost that targeted the capital.
I’m not suggesting that Trump would succeed but he might go farther this time. Prudence suggests either nailing him well before the election starts or well after; not during.
No, of course not, it targeted the White House.
Oh I agree what she did is terrible. But it was an inside job; not a popular revolt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, but there is a bit of a difference between an ex president after the fact and a presidential candidate.
More options
Context Copy link
Caesar had an army and was a military genius, Trump doesn't and isn't. He has no way to credibly threaten a coup.
I doubt he’d be successful but it would still get ugly
More options
Context Copy link
Last night Fox News was wall-to-wall Trump damage control. Now that the actual indictment is out they've got lawyers on tacitly implying they've got the goods and Trump is fucked.
Legally, he was always fucked. As was Hillary, and Biden, and Pence. If charges were ever brought.
The difference is solely in the choices of the DOJ lawyers, and perhaps how many excuses people can make about the Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration precedent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Disagree. He sort of has an army. I feel like 20% of the population loving him is close. But let’s say 2024 has actual proven cheating or something enough to get people worked up. If 20-30 states tell the Feds to fuck off that’s a constitutional crisis.
Worked up enough to…what? Evade taxes? Take potshots at the local Democrats? Fedpost?
I don’t even know what a state would do. Say Abbott puts out a press release denying the election results. He launches an investigation like this and it reports, wow, trump won bigly. And look, Mecha-Biden did 9/11. What happens next? Is there anything Abbott can do with that information?
Abbott could make life very difficult for the federal government in a number of ways(cutting off energy shipments out of Texas, for example, or trying to take Texas out of the national currency system, or announcing state level nullification of foreign trade laws). None of them are much more likely than him winning the lottery but he could blow up the federal system if he wanted.
More options
Context Copy link
LOL, nice try.
More effort than this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No mass of people is anything like an actual disciplined army. Really, short of an entire branch of the US military, there probably is no modern equivalent to a legion.
I mean there’s a (small)military force on the Texas-Mexico border entirely under red tribe command, but it’s not the sort of thing you’d start a civil war with. There’s also a few militia groups that aren’t very tested but can probably raise a lot of hell. Again, probably not the sort of thing you’d start a civil war with.
More options
Context Copy link
Is the military allowed to shoot citizens? Or illegals for that matter?
No, which is why the military, before shooting anyone, always asks to see their passport.
All jokes aside, the answer is yes
Agree they are authorized but there’s a difference between being able to and actually shooting people. We’ve already seen this with blm riots.
I don’t understand the blm reference.
Rioters were not shot by police or soldiers, because the police and soldiers were very, very worried about making the situation worse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Huh? I'm confused as to what you're asking here.
If the military can’t shoot a mob then the mob is as good as an army and force their view.
I mean, isn't this one of the reasons we have and regularly deploy the National Guard during domestic unrest? Because they're empowered to act as law enforcement, up to and including shooting citizens?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your replying that us civilians have no chance vs the US army. He's questioning the legality of the US army being allowed to kill its own people.
No, I wasn't really speaking to that. Just to discipline, organization, and espirit de corps.
Caesar's legions had been with him in Gaul for years, responding to no authority and carrying little loyalty to anyone outside the legion. They were self-contained, having little contact with structures outside of the legion. Their pay came from the legion's paymaster, their food from the legion's quartermaster, they had lived more or less continuously together for years.
They were unified under Caesar's personal command, they identified their own selves and fortunes with Caesar in a way that I'm not sure is entirely comprehensible to us. Armies today don't have the kind of loyalty to their commanders and units that they had. Caesar made his men rich (relatively) as well as victorious. Even successful modern generals like Zhukov, Patton, McArthur, or Gyap might have succeeded in winning wars, but their soldiers material success was not tied to their military victories in the same way.
There is no equivalent structure in America, short of maybe something like the entire Marine Corps defecting at once. Military units interact with other aspects of the military hierarchy, are rotated in and out of combat zones in a matter of months rather than many years, draw their pay and sustenance from a large bureaucracy, draw their prospects for wealth and advancement from the existence of an even larger one. People talk about the Texas National Guard, or Texas more generally, as a potential site of rebellion: the Texas National Guard is not used to operating as an organized unit separately from the broader Federal armed forces, and has no concept that following Abbott is going to deliver them to wealth and status. Texas has many important oil and industrial concerns, but none of them function separately from the national economy, cutting off energy exports will destroy Exxon faster than it will destroy DC, the Exxon CEO will have no interest in doing so to glorify Red Tribe principles.
You need a disciplined unit that will respond to a leader, not a disorganized rabble however large. I'd take, say, the NYPD as a unit over 35% of NYC's population. Even if ~33% of the security forces revolt, they are less useful than a single determined division that is unified under a beloved leader.
That's the difference between Caesar and MAGA.
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