site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022

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.

16
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why are you saying "No" when you are just restating the verdict as I've described?

Because what @Gdanning said is in no way what you described.

Here is the first sentence under "Opinion of the Court" in the article I linked:

The majority holding of the Court found that the crèche display violated the Establishment Clause while the menorah did not

The breakdown of the votes between the two sides of the majority is not at all relevant. I even linked the article where anyone could see the vote breakdown between the two sides. But the opinion was as I described.

The key point is that the articles are doing a lot of work here. Notice that it's "the" display and "the" menorah, not "a" display and "a" menorah. In other words, this wasn't a blanket decision saying that menorah's are okay but nativity scenes aren't; it's saying that given the specific context of each display one violated the Establishment Clause while one didn't, and provided some guidance for making such determinations in the future. Given the rhetoric of the actual decision, it's likely that if a menorah were displayed on the courthouse steps in the same manner as the nativity scene, it would likewise be a violation. It's also worth noting that there's nothing about the decision to suggest that it's any evidence of some kind of inappropriate Jewish influence. There weren't any Jews on the court at the time, and the organization that brought the suit, which was arguing that both displays were violations, was the ACLU, which, to put it mildly, doesn't exactly have a reputation for being devois of Jewish influence itself.