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 -
There's an OBVIOUS synthesis here, and I actually consider it an useful policy point that the GOP should adopt in their platform:
We should enact a federal ban on any registered members of the Democratic Party (or any organization that is their successor in interest) from owning a gun.
Yes, this 'technically' weakens the Second Amendment.
But since it also effectively bans firearm ownership for like 30% of the U.S. population, it actually brings the Democrats closer to what they CLAIM to want. So I expect they would not object to this particular law.
And lets put it this way, if the Dems don't believe in an individual right to bear arms, they shouldn't even care to fight this law in Court. Even if we GRANT that it is facially unconstitutional, who would bring the suit on their behalf? (This is tongue-in-cheek, the very SECOND anyone gets arrested under this law, there's going to be a civil rights suit filed). In the alternative, it would be funny to have the Dems funding lawsuits to strike down a gun control law.
From a moral/ethical standpoint, I see no problems with denying a group of people a 'right' they argue doesn't exist anyway (I also apply this to freedom of speech). ESPECIALLY when they can recover the right by simply changing their party affiliation.
I'm just curious if they would balk at such a law because it has a 'disparate impact' or it 'singles out one group', even if their underlying assertion is that the interest in question doesn't actually exist. Whining that its 'unfair' would be almost an admission that the right to own a gun does have some important value!
You're painting with too broad a brush. 20% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents own guns compared to 45% Republican and Republican-leaning. Even if a majority of people in the Democratic-coalition believe that the Second Amendment should be appealed and gun rights seriously impaired (which I'm not sure is the case - there's a big difference between "I want background checks, mandatory gun safety classes, and for convicted perpetrators of domestic abuse and other violent crimes to have their guns confiscated" and "I don't think anyone anywhere should have any guns under any circumstances") - I don't think you could defend this policy as a serious proposal, since it isn't actually the case that the group of people doesn't recognize themselves as having the right.
The point is to make someone live with the consequences of their own stated beliefs, whilst minimizing collateral harm.
If they won't accept THIS deal, then I refuse to accept any other proposal they could offer because its clear they DON'T actually believe that gun control measures would reduce crime and death, or else they'd jump at a chance to enact a partial gun ban.
If they can't get gun control passed any other way, surely those 20% of Democratic gun owners (who are an astoundingly small minority overall, so its not a big loss!) will sacrifice their rights for the greater good.
Or not, and force a reckoning.
Literally, I will accept any proposed gun control measure, background checks on down, as long as the caveat "only applies to registered Democrats" is appended to it.
Find me one they'd accept.
Your point is "their rules applied unfairly and against them". No one will accept that, and they'll be right.
"A rule that we believe is inherently fair and just shouldn't be applied against us, that's unfair and unjust!" Bullshit.
Why would people who want gun control rules applied to everyone object to those rules applying to them?
What's unjust about treating people PRECISELY how they propose treating others?
What makes it unfair, precisely? And why can't that unfairness be applied to gun control generally?
It applying to just them and not to everyone.
If the Democrats propose gun control for the entire country, then "treating them PRECISELY how they propose treating others" would be... gun control for the entire country. Not just for them.
It is applying to people who support gun control.
It would be unfair to apply it to those who oppose gun control, OBVIOUSLY. This is the fair outcome, where nobody gets a rule imposed on them without consent.
But as we've established, the entire country doesn't agree with it. So they can't get that. But they can get something.
Why wouldn't they accept a compromise that gets them PART of what they want? Surely they're capable of adapting their position to make such a thing 'fair'.
If they won't compromise aren't they just being unreasonable? That's what they keep saying about gun-rights advocates who refuse to compromise on gun control policies.
That's not how it works, unless you're willing to amend your modest proposal with "and all other laws that a party didn't vote for doesn't affect them anymore".
Where do I sign? I'd bite that bullet for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert. This is The Motte after all. I'm not going to retreat merely because my idea was pressed.
Incidentally, I'd also love a return to Federalism where the states can have more leeway over how they govern their own territories, but THAT is apparently goes too far by modern standards, which to me is an indictment of modern standards.
But no, I'm just making the point that 'compromise' requires both sides giving up something, and if the Dems want to achieve their gun-free utopia, they can start by with a compromise of imposing gun control on themselves.
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