site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023

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.

12
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is patently absurd. We shouldn’t be searching and contorting rules to criminalize political questions. It isn’t something that is down the fairway (eg tax fraud, bribery).

By the way, the obstruction charge related to the documents is a legit charge.

It’s fucking bullshit. No one was defrauded. No one was deceived. This slate was claiming there was election fraud and therefore they were the true electors; not that the state actually authorized them.

It was a shitty legal theory acting out a political claim; that isn’t illegal and trying to shoehorn this into fraud or disruption of an official event is disgusting.

This slate was claiming there was election fraud and therefore they were the true electors; not that the state actually authorized them.

No, take Michigan for example. The Board of State Canvassers certified the 16 electoral votes for Biden on November 23. Per the Michigan Constitution, "the certification of any election results by the board of state canvassers shall be final subject only to (a) a post-certification recount of the votes cast in that election supervised by the board of state canvassers under procedures prescribed by law; or (b) a post-certification court order."

Despite this, on December 14, sixteen people got together in the Michigan capitol building, signed a document (alleged to have been provided by the Trump administration) stating that they were the "duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Michigan". and that the state had 16 votes for Trump. They then mailed this document to the United States "per 3 U.S.C. § 11" in an envelope labeled "Electoral Votes of the State of Michigan for President and Vice President of The United States".

I guess that's totally fine though because they forgot to attach the certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors. It's not like anyone in Washington was looking for an excuse to ignore the legitimately certified votes and replace them with a sham or anything.

Despite the fact that we said we won, you said we didn't win. That's fraud!

Your definitions have made a certain kind of political dissent a priori criminal. But our rights don't descend from the Constitution, they descent from nature, and it cannot be a crime to contest the political process.

It's just not fine to swear to it in a legal proceeding.

Isn't the whole point of the argument that they were not official electors because they didn't participate in a legal proceeding? That they had to mail their ballots in? I think you're just making up whatever rationalization makes the charging document make sense.

It sounds like you believe that technicalities and penumbras are the law. Two slates of electors submit alternate ballots, but one included the magic hypothetical phrase, so they didn't do anything; the other slate didn't, so they did. Do you have any principles or something? Do you think this is a crime or not? This isn't law, it's legalism. And the legal process is controlled by a political class that respects power, not law.

More comments