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 -
Can you provide evidence that it did not?
Can you prove there isn’t a teacup orbiting the other side of the moon?
I mean, if it were orbiting the moon, it couldn't constantly stay on "the other side", because orbits are around a body's centre. And while the L2 point is a thing, L2 orbits are unstable (the Earth-Moon especially so, IIRC) so after a while it'd become visible.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, this is where the nature of the contested environment comes up.
As I said above "purpose of an election is not to produce a "true" or "accurate" result. It is to produce a clear result that the candidates (and their voters) can accept as legitimate."
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
More options
Context Copy link
Let's grant that for the moment . Doesn't it then follow that the candidates must ALSO have to convince enough people their objections are legitimate?
Where a candidate demanded that they would only accept the election as legitimate if every single ballot of 200 million or so was tracked from source to counting, then no election is ever going to satisfy them because it is just not feasible for zero errors or mistakes to be made at that scale while keeping to the idea of a secret ballot. Similarly, a candidate demanding his opponent accept the legitimacy of the election when only 5 votes were cast all of which happened to be in said candidates handwriting is asking too much.
In other words, just as the election has to be seen to be legitimate, the objections to said legitimacy must themselves have to be seen as legitimate (as in must be convincing). If you cannot convince enough of the electorate that your objections are legitimate then by exactly the same logic you are using, the objections themselves have no force. If no-one believes the election was stolen, then it was not stolen for these purposes.
Given that around 70% of people do not think the election was stolen, and they are the majority, then wouldn't that suggest the objections themselves have been found wanting in the very court of legitimacy you are talking about?
No, it doesn't follow because this is a contested environment and as such there's no "presumption of legitimacy" much less a "court of legitimacy".
But the contested environment includes whether people believe the claims of illegitimacy. There may be no presumption of legitimacy but there can also logically be no presumption of illegitimacy.
If a person who has no information is at state 0 and 1 is legitimate and -1 is illegitimate, then the only thing that matters (in your model at least) is convincing enough people to move towards 1 and away from -1.
People (who have no exposure to attempts to sway them one way or the other) don't start with thinking the election is illegitimate or legitimate , they start by not having an opinion EITHER way.
No presumption of legitimacy, no presumption of illegitimacy.
No, because again this is a contested environment and legitimacy is a product of agreement. You're not starting from zero, you're starting from negative one because in the absence of information there is no agreement, and no agreement means no legitimacy.
But no agreement is not the same as no legitimacy! Because this is fundamentally not a symmetrical world. People have to actually disagree and act as if they disagree, because inaction IS implicit acceptance of legitimacy when there is already an existing governmental system. And most people, I submit, will not (and I think this is born out by history) act as if an election is illegitimate just because they have no information either way. Hell even when it is clearly illegitimate most people simply will not act. Government legitimacy is a product of your actions not your beliefs. And most people do not act on things where they have no information (or think they have information).
In other words, it requires actual disagreement, with actual actions taken off the back of it, to render something illegitimate practically. Not simply not agreeing. So I think you are incorrect on where most people actually start from. Bob is not going to go out and start a revolution because he doesn't have information one way or the other. He may not think it is definitely legitimate, but he isn't going to go and take up arms based on that. And if Bob doesn't then the election is de facto legitimate. The courts and the agencies and other world governments will keep on treating the winner as the winner, until and unless enough Bob's actually do something about it.
Bob can internally think the election is illegitimate as much as he wants, but until he actually does something about it, it is irrelevant (and as you pointed out, it is only the contested nature that is important) if Bob is unwilling to actively contest it, then no matter the reason, it is no longer contested.
The election is legitimate until enough someone's do something about it. And they are extremely unlikely to do that if they don't have actual information (or believe they have actual information) showing it is illegitimate. It doesn't even have to be violence, it could be mass civil disobedience. Many millions of American's refusing to pay taxes and daring the illegitimate government to do something to all of them or something else.
Logically by your own definition, Biden's election WAS legitimate enough. Because he remains President. He convinced enough people to act as if he was. In a contested environment it doesn't matter what people believe or say, it matters what they actually DO. It doesn't matter whether the results were accurate, or truthful, only that enough people act as if they were. And that is exactly how people are acting. My MAGA neighbors are complaining about it sure, but they are still filing their taxes, and going to work, and buying their groceries and going about their day, exactly as they would if they thought Biden was legitimate. And therefore Biden is legitimate.
More options
Context Copy link
Endlessly repeating "contested environment" does not negate the fact that the steal crowd is making claims about factual matters which can be evaluated on a factual basis given the evidence available to us.
If they don't care about facts, and want to "take their ball and go home", and force us from a real existing condition where the guy with the most votes wins to one where we have to renegotiate our electoral processes from the ground up, that just means they've been prosecuting aforementioned claims in bad faith-- and their bad fath claims should be responded to appropriately--
We are not though.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett; Take the universe, grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, and show me one atom of "Legitimacy."
Truth, justice, legitimacy, Et Al are fundamentally subjective measurements.
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