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 -
Tucker Carlson is the maddest of lads.
Among the speculation about why Tucker Carlson was fired, so suddenly, and without any actual reason, was this interview. He had one version of it taped for Fox News, and they still own that tape. So he had the Chief of the Capital Police come in again and tape the interview again.
This makes things notable in a few ways. I'm still digesting this interview, mind you. But for starters, there is the surface level that the Chief of the Capital Police feels like he was set up to fail. Tucker takes this further, and heavily implies or leads that the whole damned Jan 6th was a setup. Then on a deeper level, there is the fact that this is the second time they've done this song and dance, so the Chief of the Capital Police knows this is Tucker's angle, beyond a shadow of any doubt, and he's still doing the interview again.
But here is Zerohedge's takeaway from the interview.
I can think of a couple reasons they weren't prepared:
People weren't expecting white conservative protestors to actually do anything.
If there was a conspiracy to prevent law enforcement from being deployed at the capitol, cui bono? There was at least one high-ranking government official who might have wanted the capitol undefended.
Also, since when does Nancy Pelosi have veto power over deploying the DC national guard? The President of the United States has that authority.
Anyone who didn't want the certification of the election to be contested. The theory that I've read that makes the most sense is that the emergency was necessary to derail the procedures for contesting electors, and once the emergency session was reconvened, without the ability to contest anything and for the sole purpose of validating the election, all of Trump's avenues of relief would be closed.
An explanation of sorts here.
Well, that's certainly a take.
What I don't get about all these zany electoral certification theories is this: Suppose Pence does have that constitutionally recognized power; suppose they do launch an investigation into the irregularities and claims of fraud. What actually happens? Trump's campaign had been spending two months looking for fraud with no success. Why should we expect a congressional investigation to be any different? The plan seemed to be:
Mike Pence has courage
???
Two scoops, two terms, two genders
Surely the investigation would take more than two weeks. What happens on January 20, when the 4-year terms of Trump and Pence end? The constitution doesn't say the President and Vice-President serve until they are replaced. It says they serve 4-year terms. The 117th senate had a 50-50 split. What happens with no VP to break ties?
Actually, suppose they do find fraud. What happens then? Do they just subtract the fraudulent votes? Is there a new general election? How do we know there won't be fraud in that election too?
You should read the Eastman memos but there was a plan to get from claims to fraud to reelecting Trump.
These are much better ideas, but if this was the plan, Trump should want more chaos and/or emergency rules, not less.
If the plan is to not count votes from certain states at all, and emergency rules "EXPEDITE the certification and dismiss all prior regular session procedural rules," (I have no idea if this is true, but it's in the above linked comment) then you want emergency rules so that you can ignore objections.
If the plan is to declare that no candidate got a majority, and that the house of representatives gets to vote on the next president, then you want the mob in or surrounding the building for the intimidation factor. The 12th amendment states, "if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President."
This idea that the capitol riot was actually the Democrats' fault doesn't make any sense. Trump had the motive and the means (after all, it was his mob).
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