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 -
A 126 page legal analysis of section 3 of amendment 14 of the constitution was released yesterday, arguing that Donald Trump, among others, is ineligible for public office, including the presidency. The authors are conservative, active in the Federalist society.
For reference, the relevant part of the constitution is
Among the arguments made were that it is legally self-executing—that is, it applies, like the 35 year old minimum age, without an explicit system to handle it to be set up by congress. Further, they think that people at almost every step along the process, from state officials deciding who goes on the ballots, to those capable of bringing an Amendment 25 complaint have a duty to ensure that this provision is fulfilled.
In reference to Trump, they argued that the events on and surrounding January 6th intending to overturn the election would constitute "insurrection or rebellion" as understood at the time of the passing of the amendment.
I can't see this not being important, but I'm not sure how exactly it'll play out—we could get court cases, possibly going up to the supreme court (no idea how that would play out). We may see state officials refuse to put Trump on the ballot. I expect this to lead to a substantial increase in support for Trump if this is seen as illegitimate, as it undoubtedly will be. At the same time, if this happens during the primary elections, and Trump is not even on the ballot in some states, it might make it significantly easier for another candidate to become the Republican nominee, unless the national Republican party interferes with it.
Note on the link: the pdf isn't opening for me right now and the wayback machine isn't helping. It was fine earlier, not sure what the issue is.
If Donald Trump wins the general election, disqualified or not, he will still be the president.
I am not going to vote for him and he is a prat, but this is almost a sovereign citizen tier attempt to lawyer what cannot be lawyered, assuming it is actually in good faith.
I am not appreciative of people pushing the Kayfabe that covers "The President is who the most important people believe the president is" to the breaking point like this.
This argument has already won one court case. Never seen a sovereign citizen do that.
Also, there is a built in pressure-valve to ensure that a disqualification does not prevail against the clear wishes of the political system - a 2/3 vote of both houses can remove the disqualification.
And if the King of England went around ordering the execution of those who displeased him and it was his right to do so, how long would he keep the crown?
Not very long, I suspect.
Trump is either an insurrectionist or he isn't, and if he wins the General, rules written, by definition he isn't. Disqualifying him from the General is either perfunctory or damaging to the system and not Trump.
The actual fucking solution to the problem of a second Trump term is to corral the power of the executive rather than an executive.
Wait, how would that be true "by definition"?
More options
Context Copy link
You know, I actually agree with this, there's a certain fairness to it. Someone charged with insurrection should, if they win a presidential election within a reasonable window (four years is fine), be acquitted on the basis that they ultimately won a rightful claim on power.
In this case, though, it's telling that the challenge is from the right rather than the left. The DNC would probably be satisfied with a Biden - Trump rematch, the base rarely gets whipped up for a second term unless there's a real meanie who might otherwise win. Trump is great for Dem donors, street-level activists, all the local and state groups, excellent for down-ballot candidates, and a proven loser against Biden.
It's DeSantis' FedSoc fans, who want a much more radical legislative agenda (and to maintain the house and win the senate) than anything Trump could accomplish, who are mounting this effort.
It is more a practical thing where it is particularly hard to depose someone who wins 51% of the voting public without breaking everything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Many Kings of England have done exactly this? Not sure what you're getting at.
Presumably they're referring to the current king. Still, the government is quite unpopular, and Charles' enemies are things like the CEOs of fossil fuel companies, monsanto and modernist/brutalist architects, so it's unclear whether this would actually result in his overthrow.
Like every other British monarchist, I had been quietly hoping that our new King had a little list of architects. They'll none of them be missed.
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