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 write in favor of letting criminals vote. The main argument is that gatekeeping the franchise is not easy and requires a lot of state capacity to securely enforce it. Most of the world lets current and former criminals vote, and I generally don't find arguments to restrict it to be very convincing:
Beyond whether or not disenfranchisement is the right thing to do, there's also the question of implementation:
And beyond implementation by the state, there's also the question of how normal people are expected to navigate the cobwebs:
And finally:
Among comparable countries, voter ID and mandatory registration are common, but considered by many to be immoral in the US.
Reading the minds of today's political enemies by assigning them dimmest motives using more than a hundred year old example would disprove a lot more than merely felon disenfranchisement. It also an example of a genetic fallacy.
As for the bureaucracy point, any further restrictions (such as age or citizenship) than allowing any person that comes to the polls to vote, but purple-thumbing them, requires some sort of updatable database necessitating a state with a higher capacity than a mere bulk-purchaser of paper, and two kinds of ink.
Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but who thinks mandatory registration is immoral? I don't think either policy is immoral, but I do question the utility of voter ID. I think the fears about voter suppression from requiring people to get an ID are severely overblown, but I can't say they're zero in a country where ID cards are not mandatory. Voter ID policy can only help mitigate against "impersonation fraud" (and not completely, since fake IDs exist) and I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. The effects one way or another seem slight, so I don't really have a strong opinion on voter ID.
That's not what I intended to communicate, all I said is that pretextual excuses have been used before to suppress the vote. Whether or not pretextual excuses are used now is a different analysis and I explained why I'm suspicious of some efforts.
Is anyone arguing disenfranchising people explicitly isn't suppressing the vote? It is by design suppressing the vote.
Your claim is then to undermine any argument in favor of banning felons from voting by saying there may be a pretextual reasons for the people advocating for it, but that criticism would be possible for the people arguing against it as well.
Because of that, it looks like you're just trying to smear people by association who argue for something similar as being racist because people in the past who passed the law said it was for racist reasons.
Yes, I would. The question of "what are the criteria to be in the electorate" is prior to the question of suppression - i.e., whether qualified electors are being prevented from voting.
Fair enough. I would argue explicitly in favor of "suppressing the vote" as well as vastly reducing the number of people who are a qualified elector. To me this seems like splitting hairs to avoid the negative connotations of the phrase "suppressing the vote," but if that were a serious hurdle itself then there is no chance one gets to implementing it anyway.
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