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 -
People keep trying to disenfranchise African Americans.
There's no imputation required in this case - the disparate impact was very much by design.
How can you tell it was racist?
Because there is a disparate impact.
Why does disparate impact prove racism?
Because it was by design.
How can you tell it was racist?
Because disparate impact.
Did you pay any attention to the details of the case? Because this response makes me think you didn't and are just resorting to pattern matching against a strawman. The NC state government did not pass some facially neutral policy which had disparate impact:
All this right after having a consent decree originally imposed for racist electoral policy lifted. The "golly gee, how did that happen" doesn't fly. If you ask for racial data and then immediately use it to enact policies which are de facto racially discriminatory, the most likely explanation is that it was deliberately discriminatory.
these aren't "details of the case," they're an argument
the NC state government explicitly passed a facially neutral policy which mentioned nothing about racial discrimination whatsoever
that's what "facially neutral" means
the response under VRA 1965 jurisprudence is that even though it's facially neutral, it's racially discriminatory because it was passed with racist intent because of the disparate impact of facially neutral laws
why? well a few judges in the 4th Cir declared the NC legislature is racist because they enacted outrageous voter laws like not allowing same day registration, requiring voter ID, and others which are already used around the USA (and still are to this day), because a member of the legislature requested data and the legislature passed the law after data was produced showing some of the restrictions would impact the way blacks vote more than nonblacks
Did you read this case or an article about it? If the later, why not link the article that you read instead of the case you didn't?
More options
Context Copy link
"The legislature" doesn't request data. Someone in the legislature did, according to some procedure, which is not set forth in the quoted section. Later in the opinion (pgs. 13-15) the language is changed to "legislators requested," which could mean that individual lawmakers asked for the data, but isn't dispositive. I do not know, but suspect, that the data would have been added to the record by progressives explicitly for the purpose of teeing up this challenge - it's not exactly a new position that the left regards Voter ID and anything but the most cursory controls on absentee- and early balloting as racist, nor is it a new charge that the GOP rejects this characterization and claims to support these policies on their own merits and for race-neutral reasons. This, obviously, would throw some water on the "those racists investigated just how they could screw over the blacks and then went and did it" narrative.
Moreover, the discontinuance of methods one group disproportionately uses is not evidence of discriminatory intent so long as adequate and facially race-neutral mechanisms of voting exist which are open to all. There is no general right to a long pre-election early-balloting window, whatever the color of one's skin, nor is there a requirement that outside organizations be allowed to do the thing that (likely) killed Edgar Allen Poe and conduct prospective voter cattle-drives. Nor is there a racial component to Voter ID requirements (provided that the Government also has race-neutral methods of distributing government-issued ID) - as has been stated many times, both here and many other places, just about every developed (and most developing) nations have some sort of Voter ID requirement, and do not regard the matter as particularly controversial.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link