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 -
ymeskhout: Bootlicking Millionaires with Severe Tongue Abrasion - Sad!
In the discussion of the Skadden thing, 2rafa wrote "I was thinking that if Trump was really smart, he would have forced them to actually commit to hiring, say, 30% of their junior lawyer intake from a college Federalist Society approved list." and I replied, "How could Trump do that? I can't think of a stick to use, and the only carrot I can think of is being hired as outside counsel, but any firm worth hiring as outside counsel presumably already has every former appellate clerk they can get."
I had seen the headlines about Paul Weiss, but I had hoped it was a weird overreaction, on their part, and could be ignored. But should we worry about the possibility that the Trump administration takes it as a sign they could continue to bully - or even outright extort - law firms? Is this a viable strategy, for the Trump administration? To what extent is Executive corruption limited by POTUS's scrupulousness and Congress's willingness to impeach and convict?
Ooof two paragraphs in and I remember exactly why I stopped reading Meskhout's blog. All heat, no light.
So Trump says the government can't work with some firms and their security clearances are revoked. And...So what? Oh one of the firms sued and one caved. Ok...Some lawyers are only interested in money? Some guys who don't look cool also happen to be lawyers who don't roll over for Trump?
If this is supposed to tell me something bigger about how the government interfaces with civilian law firms I missed it. Is the problem that now the people in the government who hired the law firms to prosecute J6 (and Trump too?) have to work with what they got? That other law firms won't want to work with the USG because they might someday get hamstrung by not having security clearances? That uh....conservative lawyers, er...um, are going to be more in demand?
I honestly can't figure out what the claim is in the article, but I'm also too hung up on the shite writing to really try and dissect it. ELI5 please.
What I still wonder is why the heck that law firm had a security clearance in the first place. I mean, I can see why people in DOD and CIA have security clearances, ditto Boeing and Lockheed-Martin and whatever random contractor gets the contract for making bits of the radar for the F-35 etc., but why does some random law firm need a security clearance?
To work on cases involving classified projects.
Also to work on cases where the government claims to be relying on classified evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I actually clicked the link and read it.
It's bad. Really bad. So bad that quoting it would reveal how bad it is.
It's just seething resentment disguised as righteous outrage, gratuitous profanity shot though every paragraph, bragging about his wife, and never any admission that what Trump is doing makes sense* for him.
In this case, the topic is the retribution Trump is visiting on the lawyers that tried to prosecute him. Or, in the words of our author,
Vengeful, yes. Petulant baby, not exactly. "When you strike at the King, you must kill him." Well, Trump has been struck, and struck again, and he's alive. Now he is revoking the privileges of access and largesse from those who he disfavors. This is not being a petulant baby, this is rewarding friends and punishing enemies. It is exactly what was done to him by his enemies.
Funny we already had a dementia patient as President, and he wasn't as active as this one. Alas, contempt for Trump excuses everything, especially hypocrisy.
No, what makes you a man is violence, and power, and the capability and willingness to use both. What makes us all gelded is the inability and unwillingness to simply do, to impose your will on reality, whether it be nature and wilderness, or other people and institutions, or least of all your own vices and base desires, like fucking your hot wife.
This is what he misses in his paean of wealth after spitting on those richer and more successful than him:
The GM doesn't have the ability to change his reality. He is less free and less manly than the poorest pioneer, the most wretched and miserable explorer dying thousands of miles from his home of strange foreign diseases, the count or duke or king who never dreamed of central heating or refrigeration or indoor plumbing.
It's a bad post, and I wish I hadn't bothered reading it.
*The image is the only part of this that's relevant to my post.
Not that everyone here is friends or anything, but this seems a rather hostile post towards ymeskhout. Am I missing lore?
Did you read ymeskhout's post? what a pathetic flail! What a flagrant red cape of blatant insecurity, advertised loudly to the entire world. What a fetid reflexively pathetic snarl of a response. What a belly cry of a scorned goat.
For those not getting it, everything after "Did you read ymeshkhout's post?" is a contiguous direct quote from the article.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't follow, it doesn't seem personally hostile against him, even if it's very critical of the post's contents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The whole point of America is that the President is not a King. The whole problem here is that Trump is acting like one.
If FDR, or even Obama, wasn't a problem for America, then neither is Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the other hand, the title really is appropriate for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like the Paul Weiss thing is extra embarrassing because the Perkins Coie TRO was issued two days before the executive order targeting Paul Weiss. Paul Weiss already had a pretty good indication that if they fought the EO they would win and then they decided not to do it anyway!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link