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 gave you several decisions. "Funding", "authorized" and "the president counts as commander in chief" applies to both the army and navy, so we don't need to decide. "Has a 2 year funding limit" doesn't apply to the navy; it reasonably is because the navy has equipment that needs to be maintained, which would also apply to the Air Force.
At any rate, it doesn't matter. I agree that it's not possible to give a logically tight reason that explains whether the Air Force counts as an army or navy in every single situation. But I wouldn't call this a problem. The fact that you can argue whether it counts as an army or navy, and that there's sometimes no definite answer, doesn't mean that the Constitution allows you to do anything whatsoever with it. "Has to be treated like the army or navy" is still a serious restriction on what it's permitted to be.
We do need to decide. The Constitution authorizes Armies and Navies. I don't see any Constitutional provision that authorizes entities that are in some quantum superposition, such that we only see some probabilistic sense of what it is each time we poke at some little aspect of it. I'm kind of liking the hypothetical I just came up with over here. There, I focused on the bureaucratic history, because that's what the other commenter thought it was. Here, I'll focus on the quantum superposition nature.
Let's say they just stand up a Price Force; no bureaucratic history needed; it's from whole cloth. One might ask whether it's authorized by the Constitution. "Wait! Is that an Army, which is Constitutionally authorized... or a Navy, which is constitutionally authorized... or something else, which might not be Constitutionally authorized?" I would probably not buy claims that it doesn't matter, that you don't need to decide, that it's some magical quantum superposition just because we say so. That we can obviously fund it, that it's obviously authorized, and that the President obviously counts as the Commander in Chief of the Price Force, since those all apply to both the Army and the Navy. That perhaps the only consideration is whether or not the Price Force has equipment that needs to be maintained. So, uh, I guess if the Price Force decides they need big supercomputers that need maintained, then they're a "Navy" and a "naval Force" and don't have a 2 year funding limit (and otherwise have to abide by the various Navy clauses instead of the Army clauses)... but if they don't (or we decide to not talk about them), then they're an "Army" and a "land Force"?
But wait! Doesn't the Army have big supercomputers!? Don't they, uh, have equipment that needs to be maintained? Has the Army been a "Navy" and a "naval Force" all along? Did we just not notice? We just didn't poke the quantum superposition right or at the right time or something? Or is it that if we just don't talk about the equipment that the Army needs to maintain hard enough, it can stay an "Army" and a "land Force"?
If the history of the Price Force is unrelated to the army and navy, and the functions it performs are unrelated to the army and navy, then it wouldn't count. Sure, the government could disingenuously claim it's similar when it isn't. There's no way to stop that.
That example was once we've decided it's an army or navy, we need to figure out which one it's more like. You don't do this from scratch.
Also, I'll bring up freedom of the press again. You've said that you didn't think freedom of the press should be treated this way--radio and TV count as the press (and speech) even though the founders didn't include them. So how do you solve the same problem that you have here, for freedom of the press? If the US government tomorrow declared there to be a Price Press which involved the government paying money to subsidize one political party, would this practice be immune to being shut down for any reason since that violates freedom of the press?
If the government declared Marxism to be a religion, would it fall under freedom of religion?
Ok, then I'll just repeat what I wrote in the original comment proposing it:
Perhaps it does not matter which one its history grew up in, and all this establishes is that the Price Force is an ArmyOrNavy. Do we then move on to asking about its supercomputers to try to figure out which one it is?
? Once we decide that it's some quantum superposition? Are you referring to the "ArmyOrNavy Clause"? Where is that in the Constitution?
There is no Constitutional grant of any such authority anywhere. We have specific Constitutional grants of authority. There is no freewheeling grant of authority to establish a Price Press; there is no freewheeling grant of authority to establish a Price Force1; there is no freewheeling grant of authority to establish an Air Force; there is no freewheeling grant of authority to establish a quantum superposition ArmyOrNavy. There is a specific Constitutional grant of authority concerning Armies, specifically and individually. There is a specific Constitutional grant of authority concerning a Navy, specifically and individually.
1 - At least AFAICT. I believe I still remain ignorant as to whether you think the establishment of a Price Force is authorized by your reasoning. I still remain ignorant as to what we do, on your view, about its supercomputers or lack thereof. I still remain ignorant as to what we do, on your view, as to the current Army's supercomputers/other equipment that must be maintained. I guess our first step was to determine that the US Army is an ArmyOrNavy quantum superposition. And then step two is to look at its supercomputers/other equipment that must be maintained and conclude that it's a Constitutional Navy?
A Price Force is not sufficiently like either the army or navy to count, so it isn't authorized. Yes, the government could lie and say that it is.
But there's a freewheeling rule which says that an already existing press gets freedom of the press. So once the Price Press exists, freedom of the press applies to it. Laws or orders that shut it down are unconstitutional.
An Air Force is not sufficiently like either the army or navy to count, so it isn't authorized. Yes, the government could lie and say that it is.
That's pretty easy to just state ipse dixit. But there's something missing that I would call "reasoning". So far, when we've tested your reasoning, it has led to many more questions that you've consistently refused to answer.
That's not how Constitutional grants of authority work. At all. Honestly, if this is your understanding of the Constitution, there's probably not much more value in me continuing this discussion.
Pretty much nobody could sincerely claim that the Price Force counts. A huge number of people could sincerely say that the Air Force counts. The object level is important.
Creating the Price Press is something the government can do using its ordinary powers. The free press clause isn't granting it authority at all.
The free press clause only comes into effect when the government tries to shut it down.
Why not? Frankly, I just don't believe this whatsoever. This is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity. I guess this is what you're left with after your prior tests didn't work out. There's simply not a single shred of reasoning here.
No.
No, it's an argument "people don't think that". It is possible to observe people and draw conclusions about what they might think. "People don't think this" isn't an argument from personal incredulity.
Yes. The government can spend money on lots and lots of things. Consider that the government actually has things like the Voice of America, subsidies to NPR, etc. The Price Press isn't all that different from that.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link