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 -
Trump case out on him being an insurrectionists.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Compared to the Reddit debates and how the SC would prevent this as a non-lawyer I thought the opinion was fairly basic and simple. It seems to me that they just declared it a Feds power in Federal elections and the States don’t get a say. Personally, I did come to a belief that it was self-executing.
I think they avoided really touching on all the novel legal theories both ways going around on Reddit or twitter.
It came down to what I believe was one of my original views that letting States have any say in declaring someone an insurrectionists would be a complete clusterfuck and basically turn into state legislatures electing Presidents. Therefore they declared it a federal power.
I would call this pragmatic versus legally correct in my opinion. They avoided 100 page treatise on whether the President is an office holder.
I predicted something between 7-2 and 9-0. 9-0 seems better for the nation.
I'm happier it's a 9-0 with a messy concurrence than a 6-3 with a dissent, but it's still got a 3-justice concurrence with phrases like
Which, to be fair, the majority opinion is otherwise a very Roberts order. Lots of floaty theory, and broad strokes of general purpose, not as much focus on statutory text or history. Doesn't even really engage with the plaintiffs well, like smothering the reactions to Gorsuch's (and Alito's) hypothetical about what happens to an in-office oathbreaking insurrectionist under the self-executing theory into "not even the respondents contend that the Constitution authorizes States to somehow remove sitting federal officeholders who may be violating Section 3", which is true, but mostly because it wasn't asked in the mess of the oral args.
But I expect that, regardless of the text of the majority opinion, someone's working on a lawsuit today trying to get Trump disqualified under federal law.
I think it blocks my horror story -- where people start talking about what votes, after being cast, may be counted, which courts were already flirting too close with, and then Baude-Paulsen giving legitimacy toward even low-level poll officials having the power to make that determination, such that even if later-overturned becomes hard for Red Tribers to believe isn't happening while being impossible to bring lawsuit against -- but we'll see how people respond. If there's massive resistance from lower courts, it doesn't really need to.
Yeah, I was a bit concerned that Jackson might go the "please defy us and take extralegal means to prevent Trumpian election" route in a dissent, but that didn't happen which is good.
Remaining paths for Interesting Times include:
3.Trump wins, the filibuster gets nuked, thermostatic opinion delivers midterm victories for Democrats, Congress passes enabling legislation for section 3, Trump vetoes it to prevent himself from being removed from office, he gets impeached again for the veto...etc.
Sorry; I might not have been especially clear. As I was using it, "Interesting Times" ~= insurgency/civil war; people being killed on a large scale. That #1 I noted, if done with timing such that Biden wins by default, is probably enough to open that can of worms. #2 may also be; I've heard some worrying things out of my SJ contacts.
What you said seems to be basically politics as usual (at least, as usual for troubled times); I don't see anything there that's a clear red line the way "election with only one valid candidate" is and "Trump in power" may be for the Blue Tribe, except insofar as it reduces to #2 because Trump would be in power and doing Trump things.
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