I don't know to what extent there are established precedents for when a topic is worthy of a mega-thread, but this decision seems like a big deal to me with a lot to discuss, so I'm putting this thread here as a place for discussion. If nobody agrees then I guess they just won't comment.
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
American insider baseball? I lack the context to make sense of this.
Edit: Thanks for the explanations, makes sense now.
I listen to news commentary talk radio every day. This story has dominated coverage. Also front page articles in American newspapers. It's the big deal this week.
After the American Civil War they passed a Constitutional ammendment banning former-Confederates who also were former civil officers or military officers. These people swore oaths to defend the Constitution and the Republic and then betrayed those oaths.
Colorado state court says Trump is ineligible based on this. He's an insurrectionist. And that ammendment mentions nothing about needing a conviction. So they've ordered him removed from the state primary ballots, which will be printed in a few days. The Supreme Court needs to rush to block this or Trump's won't be on the primary ballot. And given this logic to keep him off the primary, surely they'd have to keep him off of the general election ballot. Which is actually a callback to states pre-Civil War not putting Lincoln on the ballot. Just don't even pretend anyone is allowed to vote for your opponents.
Plaintiffs in at least seven states have tried to get state courts to remove Trump from the ballot using this reasoning. They finally found a venue willing to do it. Just barely, the judges that ruled on this are all Democratic appointees and even they only barely majority support this. So it is not that popular yet, unless the people pushing for it can convice more states.
I would say removing a candidate from the ballot like this is not inside baseball and is actually a rather big deal. We already have Republicans threatening to remove Biden from ballots in retaliation. Could be idle threats. Could be a bad path for our nation to go down. Also going to wound the Supreme Court's credibility among half the nation when they rule on this. This is corrosive.
There are a number of issues there, most notably that Trump (uniquely among Presidents for decades if not centuries) has never been a member of Congress, an officer of the US, a member of any state legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any state.
Agreed. The 14th Ammendment is way too verbose and overspecifies who counts. By my reading Trump doesn't.
I suppose circa the late 1860s it was perfectly obvious who was a former insurrectionist and former officer, representative or appointee. So slightly overly specific language wasn't a problem.
I also suppose insurrection was so clear to them in its magnitude and unambiguous nature that Trump didn't do anything that counts. He didn't wage literal war against America. His tweeting to stay peaceful and go home don't count.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link