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 has been indicted (again), this time in Georgia, under RICO charges. The charges against him and a large number of co-conspirators relate to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Full indictment here.
We've seen a range of charges laid against Trump in varying jurisdictions, and I think it's fair to say the cases have varying strength. These new charges seem to me to be on the strong end of the spectrum.
Helpfully, the indictment is painfully clear at every point as to what particular acts constitute which particular crimes or elements of crimes. This makes it a lot easier to assess for an uneducated layman like me. On at least some of the charges, it would appear that he's deeply screwed. E.g. "Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer" seems to be open and shut, and carries a minimum 1 year sentence. He also has no capacity to pardon himself if he is elected President, as these are not federal charges.
As far as I can tell Trump's only hope to escape conviction here is jury nullification.
If solicting a government official to violate their oath of office is a crime punishable by 1 year per instance, then the very second a libertarian government gets in every single democrat and half of republicans will be put in the work camps for repeatedly soliciting politicians to pass gun control and violate their oath to defend the constitution (which includes the second amendment).
Also every single crime will now be a life sentence because asking police officers and judges to go easy on you will now be likewise criminal solicitation to violate the law and not uphold it.
This law is a blatant violation of not only free speech, but the right to petition, it is not on the public not to ask politicians and government officials not to violate their oaths, it is on the government officials not to violate it.
Notably the first president or public official ever convicted in any way related to their oath will not be convicted for violation, which has basically never been adjudicated and has no precedent, not even rank madness like Lincoln bringing in a draft never mentioned in the constitution or the illegally ratified 16th amendment which makes a mockery of every privacy and property right in the constitution or english common law...
But instead the first notable conviction for anything oath related would be of an elected American President, not for any war crime, not for any violation of American's rights, not for corruption, not for colluding with hostile foreign powers (as FDR certainly did with Stalinist Russia), but for asking a state official to review something the state official didn't....
If Trump can go down for this every soul who's ever set foot in DC could be hanged. And I would lead the revolutionary tribunals to do it.
These are plainly not analogous. In the gun control case, those advocating gun control clearly don't view it as a violation of the second amendment, whereas as I understand it the charge against Trump is that he knowingly advocated an action which would violate oaths of office.
They are well aware via plain reading of the second amendment and any of the surrounding documentation, as their is enough evidence that they did know the text of the second amendment or should have known such as makes no difference.
But even if we allow that by your logic the tens of millions of democrats who have at some point said "The Second Amendment says this, that's why politicians need to get rid of it" Would thenforce be guilty anytime they advocated gun-control, and probably on every individual count.
Think of all the democrats who at some point said something like "the constitution was written by slaveowners, we don't need to listen to what slaveowners wrote about slaveowner's rights to own guns" All of them go to prison under this standard, that's hundreds of thousands if not millions of democrats.
I think there is ample evidence that a reading of the 2nd Amendment vastly different to that which you advocate can reasonably be taken; even if you disagree with it there is a legitimate perspective that rejects what you consider to be the 'plain reading'. See, for instance, cases like Aymette v. State of Tennessee, which held that the right to 'bear arms' was a political and group right rather than an individual one, such that the 'legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens', as the 2nd Amendment (and the provisions of the Tennessee state constitution) guaranteed the right to employ weaponry only in 'civilized warfare'. Hence it upheld a ban on the concealed carrying of knives. Also, because it exists as a 'group' right for the 'common defense' only, though the general right has to be preserved 'it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed'. See also Buzzard, City of Salina v. Blaskley and US v. Adams (1935, not 1966). This interpretation is not in fashion these days, but it is clearly a legitimate view, and indeed to my mind a very persuasive one.
I'm not so sure. While I don't think there are 'tens of millions' who would concede what they want is in violation of the constitution (most would surely give some rationale, either similar to the above, or arguing about 'well regulated etc. etc., or simply advocate changing the constitution), the level of 'solicitation' is vastly different between the incumbent President pressuring officials into changing election results vs. a man on the street with a placard in favour of a gun control proposal he deep down thinks is contrary to the constitution.
I think this sort of rhetoric is more about being in favour of a 'living constitution' interpretation, but either way what I said before still applies; we should hold an incumbent President to a much higher standard on this kind of thing than an ordinary person, as the extent and harmful effects of the 'solicitation' are vastly different.
The law wasn't written for presidents, it was written for the general population. Indeed an individual state would not be able to write a law binding only the president.
Ergo if it applies to him Retweeting and commenting on a news piece, it applies to literally everyone for all political speech.
It wasn't just about tweets, it's about a letter he sent to Raffensperger asking him to decertify the election. Of course the law applies to everyone equally, but not everyone has an equal capacity to 'importune' to the same extent.
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