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 -
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.
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.
Americans are the proud inheritors of the British tradition of government by consent. As with every social institution in such a society, the rules can be set by the most local institution according to the local custom. And can be changed if the custom changes.
Rights are a lot less messy when you give up on the destructive idea that they can be positive and restrict them to the specific traditions of Englishmen. As Clarence Thomas is fond of explaining tersely.
No, you're just unhappy with the English tradition and would like a more ideal and logically consistent form of Liberalism that is untenable.
You are sick of the malady of the French Revolution and will only dissolve any society you get control of in a futile attempt to reconcile equality and liberty.
This is not possible, and it is not desirable.
The idea that one should shrug and accept tyranny in the face of such contradictions is not American. The American way is to embrace an optimistic negotiated compromise and entrust the future to make good on the spirit of that compromise.
It is certainly not to have the State figure out the rational answer to a problem and have people conform. That's the Continental way of doing things, with its managerial demands for universal standardization and its enforcement at the point of bayonets. One must ask: what the fuck is a kilometer?
Sure, so if the local custom changes to disallowing race segregated spaces (as America has done) then that idms fine and dandy. Abd then if they decide trans women can use womens bathrooms that is also fine and dandy?
I agree that is a description of how the world operates. But it doesn't give you any information on how to decide if the local consensus is good or not. The local consensus is the local consensus is both true and not terribly helpful.
Plus the English tradition (itself obviously only important if it is the local consensus) does include positive rights.
Regardless society is quite capable of compromises, so while it may not be possible to perfectly reconcile equality and liberty, the most sucessful nations do make the attempt and perfect is the enemy of good enough.
The only thing that matters is consent.
Segregation was ended by the force of bayonets. That was unjust. Even if segregation itself was an ill.
A healthy society would have sought to reconcile the races through means of discourse rather than force. And would not have created the ressentiment that animates racial tensions in it today.
I am precisely denouncing the notion you are so fully avowed to that you don't notice it: that of universalism.
The English tradition is peculiar, not universal. Your neighbors may not decide to live as you do. This is not cause for alarm and demands they change to suit you. Insofar as their relationship to you is proper.
As the English are fond of saying: mind your own business.
You'll note that such an arrangement is a lot more compatible with fair lives for transgender individuals than the universalist battleground where that have to win out some political argument to be allowed to exist, but it demands that they do not seek to upend society.
It does not. Or you would be able to name them.
What about habeus corpus or the right to trial by jury?
Negative rights self evidently. You are not to be arbitrary imprisoned.
That this demands extra effort from the State is not to be confused with the demand to continuously provide you some resource or work as a privilege.
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