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 mean, did you hear about his kerfuffle with Disney and the Reedy Creek Improvement District?
Desantis directly challenged one of the single most powerful private entities in his state, which is also one of the biggest corporations on the planet.
I dunno if the "voting rights" faction warrants any particular caution in light of this.
If he gets taken down, it'll probably not be due to these twenty arrests. Probably.
Given that the Reedy Creek matter isn't over yet I'm not sure that's an example you want to be giving. I'd be willing to bet a decent sum that come next July, it's still in existence.
And do you think that other corporations in the state are more or less likely to take open positions disfavoring legislation passed by the state government during that time?
Again, Meta level. Disney spoke out against the "Don't Say Gay" (sic) bill at the behest of lefty/democrat activists. Then Desantis took the fight to them. Disney has since shut the fuck up about said bill.
Showing that you're willing to fight the biggest guy in the prison yard is a good way to keep other, smaller guys from messing with you going forward.
You think that in a liberal society it's the proper role of government to threaten legal consequences for exercise of free speech rights?
Are you implying that the LARGEST MEDIA CONGLOMERATE ON THE PLANET had it's ability to exercise free speech threatened by this action?
Is there anything at all stopping them from using their dozens of channels to air 24/7 anti-Desantis ads if they chose?
Do you think that a Corporation that disagrees with legislative actions taken by a representative government are entitled to continue enjoying special privileges conferred by that government?
Should a liberal society allow corporations to receive special privileges from the government in the first place?
I dunno. I think there's a clear distinction between an action like "dissolving the Disney Corporation and seizing all the assets it has in the state before imprisoning its executives" and "dissolving the special district that is, by definition, a political subunit of the state itself but happens to be politically controlled by the Disney Corporation."
I would find it a bit absurd if Disney were able to prevent the state from exercising authority over it's special district should the legislature decide to act.
I'd love to live in the world where my government doesn't directly interfere with legal corporate activities and corporations didn't take active political stances on contentious legal issues.
The question of whether Disney is entitled to having a special district or whether such districts have a place is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand because DeSantis's actions don't really address it. There are over 1800 such districts in Florida, some of them in favor of entities like NASCAR whose contribution to the public good, to the extent that one exists, is roughly on par with Disney's, and to my knowledge there's no movement from DeSantis or anyone else to do away with them. If DeSantis had made a principled argument that such public-private partnerships were antithetical to the spirit of liberal society and pushed legislation to do away with all of them, to the extent that it was feasible, then my opinion would be based more on practical concerns, i.e. whether the state was taking on an undue burden by assuming services that had previously been provided by private entities. But that isn't the case here; the action is wholly retaliatory. DeSantis himself certainly had no qualms about granting Disney special carve-outs in the past.
And if the state is going to allow such districts and partnerships and special privileges to exist, then no, those privileges shouldn't be preconditioned upon the holder of them to conform to the political whim of those in power. Should a bar owner lose his liquor license for putting a Trump sign in the window? Should government employees be required to work on their bosses' campaigns as part of their jobs? Should government contracts be awarded based on who said the nicest things about the elected officials responsible for granting them? The worst part of all of this is that it's antithetical to the standard line conservatives have been giving about corporate speech for the past ten years (and a line that I personally agree with). Should Citizens United be overturned? Should bakeries be compelled to bake cakes with messages they disagree with? Should Catholic employers be forced to pay for their employees' abortions? Conservatives have insisted for decades that companies are entitled to the same First Amendment rights as individuals are, and courts have largely agreed with them, but when they find the speech in question disagreeable all that goes out the window.
The standard line conservatives gave in the past about is what generally led to the current state. Modern conservatives are learning to stop embracing the philosophy of losers, because losing spoils every other thing you want.
So long as Disney opposes the right, I want all the force the right can bear brought down on them. That's the only way Disney will stop opposing the right. Being a principled loser is for suckers.
By how you describe it, free speech rights under a "modern conservative" regime would not exist, because freedom of expression would be conditional on supporting the government's agenda. If you oppose the government's agenda, you'll have the full force brought down on you until you stop opposing the government. Am I misunderstanding something?
"Free Speech" doesn't exist now, and hasn't for some time. One cannot lose what is already long gone, and perhaps never existed.
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