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 -
President Biden proposed a reform of the Supreme Court:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/
I don't know if 1 is really necessary, I honestly kind of like 2 and are sceptic how to enforce 3. Certainly a more centrist approach instead of court packing.
I am reassured in that when I heard him saber rattling about "reform" of the court I thought he meant packing.
As for the substance of it, 1 can be argued but is a question of constitutional taste, I like powerful executives personally. 3 is a complete non starter that would undermine the entire constitutional order and put the people who rule on such ethics in charge of the judiciary. Impeachment exists already, just because you can't get people to agree with you that Thomas ought to be removed doesn't mean you get to or ought to change the rules.
2 is more interesting, but it also undermines the intention of stability behind the court, and much like removing a senate or any other institution based on seniority, makes change easier and therefore institutions more vulnerable to the danger of fads which is an ever present feature of democracy.
The power analysis is more straightforward as always: the court is a rival castle and must be brought in line because originalism is in the way of what dems like Biden want. And this is just building more precedent to try and do it.
The concern on #3 is like asking "who judges the judge of the judges" which is accurate and also makes me chuckle. I don't think it's entirely impossible, but it would need some more thought than it has currently received, and I think a well-written ethics policy could be fairly robust to manipulation.
If I were to summarize my entire political ideology, opposition to this statement may be a good start. With due respect.
My default assumption is if the means and motive to abuse something exist, someone (government or otherwise) will attempt to abuse it (and usually succeed).
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