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 -
The charitable answer for Idaho is that the moderates saw non-intervention as likely to result in some absolutely abominable precedent in the 9th Circuit under the original constraints (eg, finding that any federal encouragement of a thing prohibited a state restriction, which the Civil Marksmanship Program would absolutely love to hear about), which SCOTUS would have to overturn in the most controversial case possible, and then the concessions from both the federal and state government during trial set that concern off the table.
The less charitable is that the concessions were enough that, even if the moderates could recognize voluntary cessation when it was slapping them in the face, they saw that they could punt. See NYSPRA I, Fulton, so on for previous editions that got further along. It's not a lack of willpower; it's a lack of desire.
The text of EMTALA covers only stabilizing care in emergency rooms that accept medi* funds. There'd be a hilarious mirror stretch where a conservative administration tried to turn it into a hospital Born Alive Act, but trying to ban abortion at clinics that don't have emergency rooms would be far more of a stretch.
Yeah, that's a big one. I think people overestimate how big -- too much of ALJ depends on these civil penalties for them to actually comply with the dicta, and a lot of the targets of these historical civil penalties will roll over for the equivalent of plea bargains when various administrative offices start pointing out that it's not that much harder to prove jail-time-penalties if they have to go to a jury anyway. But it's also not just Big Business that gets hit by civil penalties: while I expect them to Massively Resist it, everything from the EPA to the ATF depends on this sorta thing.
((Technically, even a lot of fire/safety code stuff does, though the weird state of incorporation of the right to a jury trial means that it probably doesn't matter for state regs in the near future.))
EDIT: and Loper-Bright on Friday is a second part of a Mozambique for admin law advocates. It's likewise not going to matter as much as it should, since lower courts are still going to do Chevron-in-all-but-name -- and Robert's bizarre stare decisis argument is just giving permission for it -- but just having to put the work in will slow a lot of expansive reads of federal law.
More options
Context Copy link