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 -
Eric Adams and Shit They Supposed To Do
In what seems like it had to be cultural eons ago (1996), Chris Rock had a famous routine about black men trying to take credit for shit they are supposed to do. Barack Obama referenced it approvingly.
Well, it's decades later and Eric Adams is apparently going to have his corruption charges dropped in exchange for not obstructing the Federal Government's power to enforce immigration law. The punchline here writes itself, but the long term trend ought to be worrying -- a political system can't operate in an environment where dereliction of one's duties can be weaponized into a point of leverage to be bargained for. Adams isn't bargaining for a favor he can do Bondi here -- he's bargaining to stop doing something he was never supposed to be doing in the first place.
The game theory is clear -- the less of your obligations you fulfill, the more leverage you have.
'Twas ever thus. The idea that states not co-operating with or even obstructing the Federal government in the exercise of its powers is some sinster and unchartered political development is obviously absurd. The Fugitive Slave Law, Reconstruction and the black codes, prohibition, desegregation etc. etc. What is actually the problem, and more abnormal, here, is the federal government using the legal system to intimidate and blackmail political opponents into doing what they want (and before some retard starts moaning about the Trump cases, they were not conditional on anything, they were just prosecutions that were attempted to be carried through to their conclusion, and stood or fell on the merits, not on political cooperation). If the charges are real and would stand up, they should be carried through, not dismissed to get a quid pro quo.
It is absurd. Eisenhower sent the US Army to Arkansas to enforce desegregation. That debate ought to be put to rest.
Sure, but elsewhere Southern states resisted desegregation for a long time and really quite effectively. Even through the 70s and 80s schools in many deep Southern states (particularly Louisiana if I recall, but also others) where still largely segregated, beyond what one would expect by pure geographic concentration.
I don't think it was terribly effective at all. The policy of segregation was dismantled with great speed.
Of course, the practice persisted beyond the policy, but that's not within the purview of the courts. Certainly no school system retained any kind of segregation policy into the 70s.
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