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 -
Political Quick Hits
A few scattered thoughts that don't merit separate posts:
The Nancy Mace Capitol Hill bathroom saga has come to an unceremonious close. Sarah McBride issued a public statement that she came to Washington to legislate, not to wage personal battles, and that she'd abide by whatever the House wanted. Trans activists were predictably disappointed, not only wanting a more forceful response from McBride but a unified response from House Democrats, but they weren't going to get it. The only notable public statement came from AOC, who pointed out that neither Mace nor Mike Johnson could tell you how they planned on enforcing such a rule, unless they planned on posting a guard who would check the genitals of anyone who looked suspicious. She also cynically accused Mace of trying to exploit the issue to get her name in the papers. Mace responded by calling AOC dumb and her suggestion disgusting, but she didn't offer any alternative enforcement mechanism. Johnson himself sided with Mace, but only to the extent that he believed existing rules favored her interpretation, and he never said that he'd be bringing Mace's resolution to a vote.
This whole tack seems like it's part of a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Five years ago an incident like this would have resulted in mass condemnation from the entire party, including those in leadership positions. The sum total of opposition in this case came from three people, and all three seem like they were hand-selected. Two were LGBT themselves, and the only one with any national profile was AOC, easily the most liberal member with any credibility. And even then, the comments were unusually focused. All three reps managed to hit just two themes: That the suggested rules were unenforceable, and that Mace is doing this as a publicity stunt. No long jeremiads about trans rights or anything. It's almost as if they've finally become aware that the issue is a loser, and rather than engage they'd rather let the issue quietly die while letting the least vulnerable members of the party get a few potshots in.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the Gaetz withdrawal, the center of attention among Trump's controversial cabinet picks has shifted to Pete Hesgeth. In addition to falling woefully short of the traditional qualifications for Defense Secretary, Hesgeth is taking heat for sexual misconduct allegations in his past and for comments suggesting that women shouldn't serve in combat. Once again, Democrats have been unusually silent, with the exception of Senator Tammy Duckworth, whose legs were blown off in Iraq. I suspect this whole thing is part of an exercise in time biding. There is serious doubt as to whether Hesgeth will survive the confirmation process. But a sex scandal and some controversial comments won't be enough to sink his nomination on their own. The biggest knock against Hesgeth is that he's written books where he essentially says that conservatives should aim for complete victory over liberals, whom he describes as enemies of America, and suggests that it may ultimately be appropriate to use the US military in pursuit of that goal.
If Democrats bring this up now then he gets to respond on his own terms, and by the time confirmation hearings roll around the results become predictable. On the other hand, if they start hammering him about predictably dumb shit now then he spends his energy responding to predictably dumb shit that he gets predictably hammered about during confirmation hearings, only for Democrats to change tack in the middle and start asking him about all the controversial opinions in his book. I wouldn't expect him to be caught totally off guard, but he won't have had weeks to rehearse his responses. How he responds to this kind of grilling could be the difference between whether the requisite number of Republican senators vote against him or not.
One other notable figure Democrats have been eerily silent about is RFK, Jr. I suspect this is because while rank and file Democrats hate him for his dumb woo woo opinions on vaccines and other things, actual politicians realize that he's the most liberal cabinet member they're likely to get. Hell, he's probably more liberal than anyone Kamala Harris would have appointed to the post. So Democrats won't challenge him, just lob softball questions at him asking him to expound on his opinions of abortion, single payer healthcare, dangerous chemicals, and big bad pharmaceutical companies. If the guy is going to be confirmed anyway, and is likely the best you're going to get, then why not throw your support behind him in a way that makes Republican senators squirm? Worst case scenario his nomination fails due solely to opposition from the party that nominated him.
After Hesgeth, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the nominee that the smart people seem to think has the least likelihood of being confirmed. I don't think it behooves Democrats to back her in the way it behooves them to back RFK, but her nomination presents an interesting conundrum. A large part of Trump voters supported him, at least in part, because he was perceived as an America First isolationist who wouldn't get us into any new wars and try to get us out of existing ones. Yet Tulsi is the only cabinet nominee who seems to embody that vision. Everyone else—Rubio, Walz, Hesgeth, Ratcliffe—are all traditional conservative hawks. Her presence in the cabinet would only serve to foment the same kind of dysfunction that riddled Trump's first cabinet. As a former Democrat and tepid member of the GOP, Republicans might prefer a more united front when it comes to foreign policy and sweep her aside as the Democrats did, and for the same reasons. That being said, I've always been skeptical of Trump's supposed dovishness, as I've never met a Republican who didn't want to bomb Iran at the first opportunity. But I still think it's odd that he hasn't just gone full neocon.
Indeed this problem seems almost intractable -- I have an idea though!
What if the government were to issue some sort of document confirming the sex of an individual? A certificate or something. Obviously it wouldn't be practical to check all the time, but at least there'd be some kind of ground truth, and complaints could be quickly and easily resolved without anyone needing to check AOC or Nancy Mace's genitals.
Having government officials observe peoples' genitalia in order to produce this document in the first place, I admit has privacy implications and would be open to abuse -- but hear me out -- babies don't really care about being seen naked, and doctors see naked babies all the time. Maybe the doctor attending a baby's birth could note this information, and provide it to the government? He/she could even note as well the date and location of birth, which could be useful down the road for proving age and/or citizenship.
I think with the proper marketing this idea could really catch on -- thing is I can't think of a catchy name for such a document! Does anyone have any ideas as to what we might call it?
Yes, yes, a birth certificate, an identify document that can be altered to reflect transgender individuals’ gender identity in all but five states. So as long as a person has a birth certificate with his or her gender of choice, he should be able to use the restroom of his choosing as well?
Birth Certificate, perfect! They won't really work if people can change them all the time though -- teenagers would change them so they could buy beer, and foreigners might take advantage of the opportunity to apply for a passport or run for President. I think these Birth Certificates would need to be written in ink, on paper at or around the time of birth -- that way people wouldn't be able to use them to defraud others.
If people are issuing other sorts of certificates that muddy the waters and track 'gender' rather than 'sex' -- you should ask yourself why those people would do that, and further why they would then proceed to complain ('complain' i guess -- AOC is not actually complaining here) that it's impossible to keep track of what sex people are without subjecting them to genital inspections.
So your answer is people have to carry their birth certificate with them to prove which bathroom they can go into? I know the UK gets a bad rap for having licenses for everything, but I've never had to show one to go to the bathroom. So in the spirit of your query:
What happened to the free market solutions in the freest country in the world? Why are you jumping straight to a government solution? If you want a female (or male) only bathroom, you can pay for a subscription and the private company will demand proof (DNA perhaps, they can buy out 23andMe, I hear that is going cheap) before you get put on the access list, for their chain of male/female/unisex W.C.s across the nation.
The free market, not the government is the best way of determining what the value of a bathroom free from the opposite sex really is, by finding out what people are willing to pay. Who wants unelected government bureaucrats making these kinds of decisions? Have you heard how much the army pays for toilet seats? These birth certificates will be printed by equipment sourced from the lowest bidder, and will be easily falsifiable. No, let's let the invisible hand of the free market deal with it, that is what America is about. That way, as the amount people are willing to pay rises, companies will convert shops into toilets and perhaps the incentives will lead to exciting new developments in toilet security technology, as they will want to ensure people do not take advantage. Let's see the Russkies keep up with the unleashed might of the American bathroom dollar! If they thought Western supermarkets were startling, once the toilet boom takes off, all we will have to do is install a few American toilets in Ukrainian towns about to be overrun, and Putin will be out on his ear in no time.
I agree, the Civil Right Act is unconstitutional and unamerican and should be abolished to restore basic rights to freedom of association.
Well free association means anyone can use any bathroom, otherwise someones right of free bathroom association is being infringed, but if thats your position that is ok.
Aren't you just trolling at this point? If this is how freedom of association worked, there'd be no point in a Civil Rights Act to begin with, and there's no way you don't know this.
I'm not trolling, I am pointing out a mistake in the argument. Free association has a positive and negative right. If you have a whites only bathroom (or space in general) then a white and black friend group have their right to associate infringed. (Like pre Civil rights times) Likewise if you have a mixed bathroom a black guy who does not want to associate with white people has his right to not associate with people he does not want to infringed when he walks in and finds Bill Clinton (like post Civil rights times).
So yes prior to the Civil rights act some people had their rights to free association infringed, and afterwards a different group does. There is no way for both parties to have a universal right at the same time. They are contradictory. And this logically maps onto the trans issue here.
Just to point out, it is ok to infringe rights, we have to do it all the time. Its just as both sides have free association arguments, THAT particular reasoning can't be used as a deciding factor. You have to have some other argument. Of which there are lots of course, but thats beyond the scope of my point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is certainly untrue. Under free association anyone can use any bathroom if they are authorized by the owner of the premises.
And yes I think that's a lot better than the status quo. If people want to have unisex bathrooms, strict bio separation, "no homers club" or whatever arrangement they desire, let them. It's a free country.
But public bathrooms are a thing. If you have a whites only bathroom and a blacks only, and I am black and you are white, our right to free association is infringed. Because we can't as so many women do go to the bathroom together.
Whether thats the owners choice or not is irrelevant, one way or another someones right to free association IS infringed. Either black and white friends can't use the same bathroom, or a white guy who doesn't want to associate with black people has his rights ti not associate infringed when he walks in and finds P Diddy there.
Its impossible for someones right not to be infringed because they are conflicting. Thats different as to whether that should be legal. You can certainly argue people should be able to pick whose rights they want to infringe, but they are certainly going to be infringing someones, ergo we are admitting there is no general right to free association. We're just picking and choosing. It can't be a free country in this regard. The US has roughly chosen that the positive right to free association is of greater value than the negative right for historical reasons but don't get it twisted, thete is no option that preserves everyones right to free association. Its a logical impossibility.
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