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 -
Lamont has dropped.
Unanimously, the 2nd Circuit has now redefined "dangerous and unusual" to mean "unusually dangerous". I don't see many ways to resolve this which don't leave the Second Amendment a dead letter, or at best allow a gun in a circumstance. The logic? To repeat myself: (because fuck you, that's why)
Association of N. J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin updates
In theory, recent changes to the 3rd Circuit's makeup could result in this case having a pro-gun and perhaps even fast decision. The case had no chance at the appeals level (two judges, Schwartz and Freeman, have already signed onto pretty bad anti-gun rulings), so this could even simplify matters.
In practice, I'm not that optimistic. The whole circuit has only a slight R-D lean, and it has enough squishy Rs on a complex enough topic that it'd be a hard situation to run on, and unlike Range has no easy way to limit to the borders of this case or the limits of the popular.
On the other hand, I guess it could be worse. It could be Koons. Except then there's a question why the en banc Koons, too.
More options
Context Copy link