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 -
Last week there was a discussion regarding restricting the right of released robbers to vote. In a related reporting, Aotearoa (New Zealand) Supreme Court has discovered that 16 and 17 year olds not being allowed to vote is discriminatory.
The reasoning relies on the fact that Aotearoa's Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits making a distinction based on age between people over 16. From this one could assume that, unlike in the US, the age of majority in Aotearoa is 16, with voting a seemingly overlooked exception. A helpful website contains counterexamples to this thesis as many other rights are also denied to 16 year old Aotearrans.
While today "18" is a common age under which rights are restricted, and its commonality is used to justify it, any deviation from it, undermines it. Age of consent being 16 in Europe (and Aotearoa), alcohol requiring being 21 to purchase it in the US and now voting age being lowered to 16 in Aotearoa, etc increase the uncertainty and invite debate. Debate into why exactly is voting allowed to those that it presently is and denied to the remainder. Attempts are made to search for the principles underlying this discernement usually find no satifactory answer.
What exactly do all law abiding (even this qualifier isn't universal among US states) American citizens over 18, young and old, rich or poor, smart and dumb have; but which no non-citizen or child posseses?
Ignoring the non-sequitor and entirely separate issue of citizenship, one answer is legal independence from their parents. If you give children the right to vote, the majority of them are just going to vote for whoever their parents tell them to. This is not universal, some rebellious teenagers will stray and choose the other party, but most will not. Even if they vote in secret, they could be pressured and interrogated by bad-faith parents afterwards and punished if the parent believes they voted incorrectly. Children do not have the freedom or authority to decide when they go to bed, how can they be expected to run the country?
Additionally, age is the only fair and equal way of addressing intelligence while still weighting the vote of all people approximately equally over the course of their lives. That is, it would be nice if smarter and more mature people voted while less intelligent people did not. But if you implement IQ tests or something comparable as requirements to vote then some people would be permanently disenfranchized, reducing their ability to have their voices and concerns weighed appropriately by politicians (especially when IQ correlates with other traits and demographics), and massively decreasing their loyalty to the nation. But everyone ages, so if you disenfranchize children, they eventually become adults and get to vote just like everyone else. Every person has an equal amount of time not voting before they get old enough and then vote, so nobody is unfairly treated. The only people who never get to vote are people who die before they turn 18, which is a tragedy we already attempt to prevent for other reasons. As such, we accomplish part of the goal of preventing unintelligent votes, with very few of the moral or practical costs that a more restrictive policy would entail.
What justification do you have for believing this? An 18-year old's vote is going to be heavily left-leaning pretty much no matter where you go in the democratic world, but you think the 16-year old vote would instead track the 45-year old demographic? Why?
Because few 16 year olds are going to be interested in politics or politically aware. They may be interested in causes but when it comes to voting in the local election for Tweedledum versus Tweedledee, neither of whom has a strong position on "save the planet from climate change" or "should I have to be in by eleven on a school night when Susie can stay out until one?", then they won't see any very strong reason to pick "white person same age as my parents over other white person same age as my parents".
So unless their parents are going to the polls, and drag Junior along, there's not much likelihood Junior will bother to vote of their own accord. And if Junior is all "Ugh, I hate this, why are you making me do it?", then it's just as likely they'll vote for whomever their parents said "Oh for heaven's sake, just put X beside John Johnson's name" in order to get this done fast so they can go back to doing stuff they enjoy and care about.
See the quote from that deleted Sequoia article about Sam Bankman-Fried:
Yes, wasn't it so coincidental that he managed to come all on his own to the same conclusion on the same topic as the view everyone else around him held, including his parents who had brought him up to hold those views? "His parents raised him and his siblings utilitarian—in the same way one might be brought up Unitarian—amid dinner-table debates about the greatest good for the greatest number."
Do you really imagine if 16 year old Sam was going to vote in a local or national election, he'd vote for a different candidate than the Democrat his parents were going to vote for?
I imagine most 16-year olds would vote Democrat because they're in roughly the same environments as 18-year olds and would therefore vote similarly. The fact that their environments encourage voting Democrat and not Republican is ultimately downstream of the Democrats being more effective at messaging to young people. That's just politics.
I'm not really sold on lowering the voting age, mind you, as the same-age-for-everything idea is very appealing. But I'm completely unconvinced by this idea that 16-year olds in particular would just ape after their parents and completely disregard all the other pressures around them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because the 5 year old would (and usually should) do what their parents tell them to, and 16 year olds are somewhere in between 5 and 18. It's a continuum, and there has to be a cutoff somewhere (unless you think 5 year olds should vote too). The distinction between 18 and 16 isn't much different from the one from 16 to 14, or 14 to 12, etc. It has to be somewhere.
More importantly, as I state, 16 year olds are not legally independent from their parents. I'm not just relying on the argument that 16 year olds are simpletons who do whatever they're told like 5 year olds do, but also that the relationship is inherently coercive. It is relatively easy for a parent to apply soft punishments to their kid that sway their behavior while falling short of legal child abuse or any feasible law against parents punishing their children for their voting choices. And while the majority of parents would not do this, especially if it were illegal, some would. And if one political tribe were more likely to do this it would give that side a direct reward for doing so, influencing politics in favor of people who are better at manipulating their children. It's not that I'm afraid children forming actual political opinions will tend to agree with their parents, it's that children will vote how their parents want without actually following their own political opinions (or even forming genuine ones in the first place).
If we were to simultaneously lower the age of majority and the age of voting to 16, I wouldn't take issue with the voting component of this change, though I would have qualms about the age of majority changing. That is, the minimum age of voting should be equal to the age where children get legal independence from their parents, regardless of where that limit is, because that's when they simultaneously gain the freedom to make their own decisions with significantly less coercion, and (at least in theory) become productive members of society who participate in it directly instead of through their parents. I think I'd be in favor of exceptions where minors who are legally emancipated from their parents and taking care of themselves (rather than being wards of the state in a shelter or foster home or something) can vote. But not kids with parents: their parents can vote and act to uphold their interests politically, just as they uphold their interests in other areas.
I like this post, but I'd like to also note that legal independence is only a component of this; given extended childhoods and more young adults living with their parents and so on, we honestly can't use this as the Only True Standard for legal propriety(?). I've seen, for example, trans adults stuck at home with lower-income families whose parents are pretty much the polar opposite of them politically, having to conceal their voting records and other non-political activities, trapped either for want of their own home or to ensure their parents are still taken care of.
So, this is to say that legal independence is a good measure (and as you allude to, we determine voting age from age of majority/adulthood, which we in turn derive from a mixture of vague socio-cultural ideas and neurobiological evidence), but if you're really concerned about the "parents coercing their kids" angle, turning 18 doesn't magically free the new voter from social pressure.
It's not magic, it doesn't fulfill the task perfectly, but again, the cutoff has to be somewhere. Having a predefined, unambiguous, and fair method for the cutoff is better than tests which might correlate better with some things but open up others to accusations of or actual corruption and bias that unfairly disenfranchises some groups more than others. So having a single age at which people get to vote is a good method to accomplish this, and among all of the ages, 18 seems like the logical choice. If we somehow came up with a reasonable measure for social coercion on someone's vote, and averaged it over people at each age, there would be a discontinuous jump around the 18th birthday, maybe slightly afterwards when people leave home for college. It would not be absolute, it might even show that the jump would even be smaller than the total increase summed through ages 12 to 16, but age 18 would have the highest derivative on average because of the legal rights it represents. An 18 year old might still live with their parents and face social coercion, or they might not, and if the coercion gets too bad they can leave. A 16 year old is legally stuck with very few exceptions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am curious, in such arguments, whether you refer to Gf or Gc as the relevant factor in determining whether somebody ought to run the country?
In the context of voters deciding who to vote for, Gc is probably the most relevant, though Gf may play a smaller but nontrivial role. You need knowledge of stuff like what problems does society face that are amenable to political solutions? Which solutions are viable or not, what similar circumstances have been faced historically, what solutions were tried then and what were the results? Which promises that politicians make are plausible and which are blatantly unrealistic? When one politician promises criminal justice reform to protect oppressed people from police and the other attacks counters that this is soft on crime and will increase murder rates, Gc is going to be more useful for comparing the truth value of each side. It doesn't really matter if the voter has high Gf can think up a clever and creative solution to the problem that addresses both issues, because they're not the one running for office and the politicians aren't going to listen to them. It might help a little, but it will help less than Gc. And Gc is also more likely to increase with age as someone goes through the education system and their brain matures, so it correlates more strongly with age.
Again, I wouldn't advocate an actual hard test for Gc as a requirement to vote, since that permanently disenfranchizes people who fall below it. But a mostly fair system which correlates with Gc is preferential to a fair system which doesn't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People who are pro-reducing the voting age seem to think it will solve the problem of "young people don't turn out to vote but old people do, so the people who get elected are those who are slanted towards issues old people think important".
If 18-20 year olds can't get off their backsides and go vote, why do you think 16 year olds will be enthused about it? If they do go vote, it will be because their parents dragged them along to the polling stations and told them who to vote for.
More options
Context Copy link
You have to have age related brightlines for a wide variety of tasks, voting is one of those tasks. And personally, I don’t care if that brightline is 16 or 18 or 21. It doesn’t really matter- they’re all roughly as good as each other.
More options
Context Copy link
With regards to age, @Tarnstellung said it best—there isn’t a universal law, it’s just very practical to have a bright line. The specific placement of that line doesn’t really matter. After all, everyone started out on one side of it, and everyone will end up on the other. That sort of transience makes the point somewhat moot.
Citizenship, on the other hand, represents a certain investment in the state. This is a (weak) proxy for shared values, but more importantly, it’s skin in the game. There’s next to no reason for a post-Soviet peasant to vote in the best interests of the US; ask him again five years of continuous residence and learning English.
Is he capable of being arrested before those five years are up? Is he required to pay taxes?
Everyone has skin in the game.
Any person in the entire world probably has some stake in what the US does, if nothing else at least in our foreign policy and immigration laws. You have to draw the line somewhere
More options
Context Copy link
Yes and yes.
I get to fall back on the “bright line” argument here. In the absence of an obvious test for sufficient investment in the state, picking a five-year criterion seems alright. Plus—this is discrimination based on choices, unlike age or race. That makes it kosher.
I think it's fair to say "an immigrant has skin in the game, but we're not letting him vote anyway until he becomes a citizen". But this is one of those cases where you need to get the reason right. Because I've seriously seen "he doesn't have skin in the game" used to justify not having citizens vote.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nothing, age is just a heuristic. This applies to other age-restricted activities, too, like alcohol consumption or sex. Whatever age requirement you set, there will be people who meet it but are still not mature enough, and people who are mature enough but don't meet it. An age requirement is imperfect, but it's usually good enough. Conducting a detailed psychological assessment of every potential voter (or alcohol drinker or sex haver) is infeasible and is open to abuse.
Voting rights for citizens and non-citizens are a separate question.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, historically, in the US the voting age was lowered to 18 during the Vietnam War, when 18-year-olds were being drafted, yet could not vote for the officials deciding whether to wage the war at all.
More broadly, it might be helpful to contemplate how the US Supreme Court addresses issues of discrimination. All laws discriminate somehow, whether they say "18-year-olds can't buy alcohol" or "felons can't own guns" or "no trucks allowed in tunnel." How to distinguish between discriminatory laws that are permitted and discriminatory laws that are not? Well, for laws which discriminate based on some criteria (eg, race) or which deprive someone of a fundamental right (eg, voting), laws are OK only if they are necessary to achieve a compelling govt interest. OTOH, run of the mill laws which don't involve such groups, or fundamental rights (no trucks in tunnel) are OK if they are somehow rationally related to a legitimate govt objective. And then there are some in-between categories (eg: gender discrimination) that have to meet an intermediate test.
This is not to say that the Court is correct in its conclusion, but its approach does seem to me to make sense, because it considers relevant factors such as the weight of the govt interest involved, the weight of the private interest involved, and the nature of the classification being made by the government, i.e., whether it is one which arouses suspicion of an invidious purpose.
More options
Context Copy link
As with the COVID stuff, NZ used for testing out ultra-left policies. There aren't any right-wing parties to vote for anyway, so who cares.
More options
Context Copy link
What’s with the Aotearoa affectation?
Yeah I'd like to hear @Syo explain his reasoning.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not fussed either way on Aotearoa, but who says "Aotearoans"?! Kiwis or riot!
More options
Context Copy link
You're correct that surveys have shown that Māori are more opposed to immigration than most New Zealanders. I'd be surprised to learn of significant Māori opposition to a name change to Aotearoa, though, given that the name change is advocated in a petition from Te Pati Māori.
There's a long tradition of Māori activism in favour of using Māori place names. I see some of the greatest passion when it comes to names for mountains in particular, whether we're talking Maungawhau/Mt Eden (small hill in Auckland) or Taranaki (beautiful isolated volcanic peak, formerly also Mt Egmont, but no longer). This makes sense, given that Māori identity declarations generally start with the mountain you belong to. Contrary to what you have implied, there is often fierce opposition, among Māori activists, for using English place names when speaking English. The land is an important part of Māori culture, as are the names given to the land.
More options
Context Copy link
It's anti-White hate speech meant to erase White New Zealander's claims of a homeland. It is a linguistic pre-cursor to genocidal dispossession.
This comment has drawn an impressive 14 reports for antagonism/boo-outgroup/inflammatory claims.
I'm reasonably confident that Westerly's question was a troll. So for starters, please don't feed the trolls.
But also, you should know that accusing someone of pre-genocide is going to be taken as inflammatory, so if you're going to do that, you really must bring evidence. Insisting on referring to New Zealand as "Aotearoa" does seem like it could be subtly consensus-building--is the Romanized pronunciation of a Maori name for a land mass really interchangable with the name of the nation state, unquestionably called "New Zealand," that implemented the legislative Act in question? Do New Zealanders use these words interchangably? Or do any of their legal documents do so? I don't know much about New Zealand, so there are all sorts of ways you could have made your point that might have served to impart information or insight.
In the future, please do that instead.
EDIT: @cjet79 beat me to it, but I admit it is often helpful to accidentally see that the mod team is in fact on the same page about this stuff!
Thank you for your constructive feedback.
Wow! That is impressive. Can you give a sense of where this is relative to some of your top-reported posts? Can you provide a ranking?
Most reported posts only get a single report (and often generate no moderator activity--some people just use reporting as a super-downvote, and we ignore them). A genuinely bad post will tend to get 3-5 reports. A post that is both bad and expresses an unpopular view can easily garner 10+ reports even in a slow week. I think the highest I've ever seen is... maybe 22 reports?
It's definitely not in the top ten. It might well be in the top 100, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is a partisan and inflammatory assertion and needs more evidence to back it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link