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 law is indeed incredibly clear: the President is the sole adjudicator of whether his documents are personal or subject to 44 USC 22. Neither congress, the archives, nor the courts can make determinations on executive materials because in so doing they would effectively limit executive authority established by Article II Section 1. Those documents of a former executive are for constitutional purposes considered to have been handled at the prerogative of the executive while still in office. Thus the tidy precedented solution of implicit mass declassification.
You are flailing against the impenetrable wall of "ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS CONSIDERED DECLASSIFIED AT FORMAL TRANSFER OF POWER" because a body of individuals who have made their contempt of the United States' constitution and laws not so much clear as irrefutable fact are predictably disregarding that constitution and those laws along with prior administrative and case precedent as they attempt yet another attack on the uniquely vilified failure of a former president.
Only nuclear secrets (of which the nuclear capabilities of foreign states do not qualify) exist in classification separate from executive authority, and executive classification exists solely because the President says it does. Congress has no say, the sitting Executive has no say (and this includes the DOD and DOJ), and the Courts can do exactly one thing and it's knock this farce down on constitutionality. If it doesn't happen in the lower courts it will swiftly be heard in SCOTUS where Trump will be found in favor 9-0.
More options
Context Copy link