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 -
Sometimes simple comments say broad things for trends. In a group chat for a mixed group someone posted the Biden energy guy who likes stealing bags. I said if the Dems ran on their current platform in 2008 they would get 10% of the vote. I got a reply “truth”.
I can go back in time and pull up Joe Biden being very anti-gay marriage. Would it be fair to say if Joe Biden went in a coma in 2008 and woke up in 2022 he would be one of the most ardent Maga extremists? And a bunch of Republicans just voted for gay marriage.
The question I’m asking is it fair to say the left made a giant leap in roughly 15 years and the extremists today are just normal people not that long ago. I know this is meme. But is this factual?
It is easy enough to look at Biden's campaign site from 2008 and find out. The answer clearly seems to be "no."
It is also easy to look at the 2008 Democratic Platform, which calls for ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell; refers to climate change as a "national security crisis", calls for the "end the tyranny of oil", and says "our response will determine the very future of life on this earth; condemns "inequalities in our criminal justice system"; promises to "restore vigorous federal enforcement of civil rights laws"; calls for "banning racial, ethnic, and religious profiling"; and opposes voter ID laws.
Edit: Biden could not have been "very anti-gay marriage" in 2008, given that he rather famously came out in support of it only 4 years later, much to the annoyance of the Obama Administration.
States rights is the governmental equivalent of the libertarian impulse to secure free speech when out of power and mumble something about consequences when you're in power.
This goes all the way back to Slavery, when Southern states tried to impose pro-slavery policies at a federal level with eg the fugitive slave acts until the majority was firmly against them and they flipped and declared that states rights were the most important issue. New England free soil parties were the ones talking about states rights and even secession in response to Dredd Scott, they flipped to talking about the sacred Union when it was convenient for their cause.
In 2008 let the states decide meant oppose DOMA and allow blue states to legalize gay marriage. In 2020 let the states decide meant end Obergefell and allow red states to outlaw gay marriage. Once the court does, hopefully, overturn that abortion of a decision we'll see the positions flip.
The who, whom remains the same, the states rights issue flips sides. Happens every time like clockwork.
No, it is the end-result of the impulse to allow decisions to be made at the lowest practicable level, in order to try and combat mob factionalism.
Much like free speech is the antecedent to all other freedoms... But those positions are held honestly by all two dozen of us principled libertarians, and semi honestly and inconstantly by a huge number of people who just use the argument as a soldier to benefit their tribe.
How else do you explain the gay marriage flip, which was largely made by literally the same Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, McConnell)? Republicans were happy to push a national ban on gay marriage until that became impractical, Democrats fought a national resolution on the issue until one in favor of their position became possible. That doesn't look like either actually existing political coalition having a real position on states rights.
Why would you expect anyone to? The whole point of the Madisonian checks-and-balances system is channeling inconstant, selfish, and transient political interests in ways that minimize the harm they can cause to the public good. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," and all that. In fact, the system breaks down most prominently when one or another entity within its design stops playing hardball and trying to grab as much power for itself as it can (i.e., the administrative state and imperial presidency only exist because Congress has been steadily neutering itself for the past 100 years, and we neutered the states through the Reconstruction Amendments and the direct election of senators).
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