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 -
What about potential intimidation. My understanding of the reasoning is that Trump and/or his followers might threaten people involved in the case thus basically making it impossible to get witnesses to testify. If Trump tweets out the name and likeness of someone connected to the trial, his followers might threaten them or damage property etc.
As above, charge him or don't. If he's engaging in witness intimidation or conspiring to do so, that's a crime and should be treated accordingly.
I disagree with this on the basis that there is (intentionally) a gap between the crimes you can commit and the crimes you can be convicted for. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high standard. Also even if you can prove it, a criminal prosecution takes time and there's value in stopping the misconduct more quickly than that.
E.g. we don't require cops to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the guy with a knife is definitely going to do some stabbing before they mag dump him. We think it is reasonable for them to act to protect the community when he makes a sudden lurch that looks a lot like intent to stab.
Ah, I see we're in the 'words are tantemount to literal weaponized physical threats' territory for speach-restraint advocacy now.
Depends what the words are. But yes, words can certainly be used to intimidate, threaten, or encourage violence. And all of those things can make it quite difficult to run a trial.
Those first two are fair, but silencing someone to prevent that last one is, generally speaking, beyond the pale in the US.
The right to advocate for violence, in the abstract, especially at a later date, has been ruled to be constitutionally protected speech in both Brandenburg v Ohio and Hess v Indiana.
I mean, yeah? But we, as a country, haven't generally been optimizing for ease of running a trial. We have, generally, been optimizing for not allowing speech to be suppressed. Do you have an argument for why now is the time to pivot?
Pivot? I was under the impression that gag orders are a longstanding practice.
That doesn't automatically mean they can be used for any reason and still be legitimate.
Sure - but Trump is being substantially less restricted than the subjects of other gag orders typically are. So it's hard to see how this is some sort of "pivot" away from freedom of speech. To the extent that you want to argue that the gag orders are unconstitutional/unacceptable it seems to me that you need to argue that this is a longstanding and systemic violation of freedom of speech.
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
Except that’s where the proof comes into play for the police, because intention always precedes action. And if the former and be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn’t really matter that the latter was able to carry out the act successfully.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link