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 -
If compact districts favoured Republicans as much as you think they do, then Republican legislatures would draw maps with compact districts. The fact that Republicans are drawing salamander-shaped districts suggests that the bias inherent in compact districts (which is real) isn't enough to satisfy them.
Incidentally, if you measure bias as "who gets more seats when the popular vote is a 50-50 split" then the largest natural bias is the one if favour of the party whose safe seats have lower turnout.
...or that there are other considerations in play, such as that it's been illegal for them to do so for some time, in large part because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which mandated racial demographic consideration (a requirement for gerrymander) and federal approval of changes (an obstacle to breaking it). Federal preclearance was only voided for a number of Republican-controlled states in 2013. There has literally only been 1 census cycle, and one congressional district reorientation, since then.
At which point you not only have the specter of (already ongoing) lawfare, but the secondary implications of working from the inertia of already-existing political subdivisions, like state counties, which themselves are often the anchoring points of congressional districts, and the political power structures that exist within and amongst these that interacts with what the legislatures can do. Even if an entire legislature was held by the Republicans, just the nature of the patronage network disruption and individual self-interests would make it a fratricide-heavy environment to pick the winners and choosers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link