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 -
There you go again - focusing exclusively on elements of an offence and acting like that's the offence in its entirety.
Let's get into the detail. Tarrio was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, 18 USC 2384, which says:
So let's apply this to the 2016 faithless electors. Can we convict them of the same crime?
Two or more persons conspire? Yep, that threshold was met. They agreed on the scheme, and committed overt acts in the furtherance thereof.
In any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Definitely.
Conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States? Nope.
By force prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States? Nope.
By force seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof? Nope.
Similarly, the Russiagaters do not fall foul of this statute.
So, whatever crimes they may have committed, they were not the same ones as Tarrio, and there is no reason to expect them to attract the same sentence - leaving aside that there are many reasons why two people convicted of the same offence may be subject to different sentences anyway.
They will not attract any sentence. That’s the whole point.
In at least some cases, they have attracted sentences - the guy who cast his electoral vote for Faith Spotted Eagle instead of Hillary Clinton got fined $1000, for example.
Now, you may argue that was a manifestly inadequate sentence - and you may be right. But it's insufficient to simply compare it to Tarrio's sentence because he did not commit the same crime that Tarrio did.
If you want to argue that there has been an unfair application of justice, a good starting point would be to specify the particular crime you think particular people should have been convicted of.
lol. lmao even.
Nah. I won’t do that. It’s your job (assuming you’re a lawyer, if not you probably should be) to find US Code §42.a.5.h.65.z “ackshually this crime doesn’t apply because of some tortured logic”. I just don’t care. Whatever “justice system” can result in the manifestly unfair decisions we’ve seen over the past several decades is entirely illegitimate and I won’t legitimize it by citing its scriptures.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link