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 -
Here's what would actually happen:
US Marshalls show up with an arrest warrant for Trump.
State police physically prevent US Marshalls from getting to Trump.
US Marshalls then arrest said state police officers for obstruction of justice under 18 U.S. Code § 1509 using the authority to make probable cause arrests granted to them by 18 U.S. Code § 3053
No, Step 3 doesn't happen, at least not without a direct order from the (political) Director of the Marshals Service. And that order won't be given if the director doesn't think it will be obeyed, US Code or no US Code. And if the marshals think the state police are serious, it won't happen until they have overwhelming force, which brings us back to the Insurrection Act.
The federal government has lots of options besides a direct firefight. Federal courts can issue injunctions against state officials personally when they violate federal law. If the governor blatantly violates an injunction, he can be arrested. Maybe Trump is willing to hide out in a compound for months, but is Greg Abbott willing to do that? Is his security detail loyal enough to him personally to risk being arrested? I doubt it.
Yes, they can issue all the injunctions they want. If the state has already decided to fight, someone has to enforce the injunctions.
You think you can have Feds arrest a state governor for a political crime and not escalate a constitutional crisis? Not a chance. A standoff at the governor's mansion or office is not going to result in quiet submission if the governor has already decided to fight (which is the sticking point, but if the state police are refusing to allow the arrest of Trump, you're already there). If they do a snatch-and-grab it's an even worse descent into banana republic (or Eastern European country rhyming with "Prussia") territory.
Constitutional crisis? How the hell is the Federal Government asserting its authority to arrest someone on United States territory for federal crimes a constitutional crisis?
Imagine the political situation in DC if the attempt to execute an arrest warrant on Trump is rebuffed by a state force. Of course Biden would send the troops in. Washington did it. Lincoln did it. Eisenhower did it. It’s standard practice at this point.
When that "someone" is a state governor or a current candidate for national office.
So you agree; Biden would use the US military to arrest and imprison his opposition, were that opposition to be assisted by a state in resisting non-military Federal forces.
I think he’d do it for people who aren’t his political opposition too. If say, Iowa had decided that it really liked crypto scams and gave SBF a full bodyguard detachment of state troopers, I think Biden would do the same thing. You can’t let states start pulling shit like that.
"You can't let [X] start pulling shit like that" is the fundamental logic of escalation that dooms this entire process. If we could agree on what the rules are and what to do when they're broken, and then stick to that, none of this would be necessary.
I kinda thought we did exactly that with the supremacy clause of the constitution.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link