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 -
Mob rule is preferable to minority rule. Plus, it's not like Trump's supreme court let anything like "norms" or "precedent" prevent them from overturning Roe vs. Wade. And that's a good thing! Both on the object level (abortion is bad) and on the meta level (people living today shouldn't be beholden to the whims of voters decades in the past.) Remember: the constitutional framers expected frequent amendments. Our ossified norms are the cause of our political dysfunction; they let disputes simmer instead of forcing action. They're a big part of why our political parties are so corrupt, and so entrenched.
Anyways, we would still have the senate.
(Also we should eliminate social security.)
How is Roe vs. Wade itself not a norm violation, and therefore it's repeal not a restoration of norms?
Actually, I'll go further. It seems the norm regarding Roe vs. Wade was that the Supreme Court can rule whatever the hell they want, no matter how absurd, and you have to respect the ruling, and if you don't like it, you have to win enough elections to appoint judges that will rule in your favor. This norm was followed by the Republicans followed it quite faithfully, even though they absolutely hated that court decision.
That is not an accurate description of how the Republicans got their supreme court majority. But whatever-- there's no point in fighting about who started it. Ultimately, both parties have proven that they don't care about norms, except as a way to complain about things that get in their way. So why not just go mask off? Appealing to "norms" is basically a logical fallacy. If something is good, do it. If something is bad... hell, try it anyways, and get punished when you fail.
I know there's this mythical idea about how some dude got kept away from a spot that should have went to him, but the idea this was breaking some norm is absurd. It was a pretty typical play for any liberal democracy.
In this case I'm saying the opposite - both sides have kept to the norm. Let's see if the court gets packed, or something, but so far so good.
You're clearly defining "norm" in a way that benefits your political interests. Symmetrically, it should be fine for your enemies to do the same. That's why this whole "norms" business is pointless in the first place. It's just a useless definition game. Similarly, "court-packing" has no objective definition. Republicans have used purely legal means to ensure that the the court rules in their favor. Democrats aren't currently capable of doing the same-- but if they were to gain that capability, there's no objective reason they shouldn't do the same. There might be practical reasons, and I would encourage the democrats to consider them, but if they decide that swaying the supreme court to their side is a good idea, I don't see why "norms" should be any barrier.
I don't see how I'm doing this. The way I'm defining "norm" might benefit my political interests in a specific case, but a simple look at the historical record will yield many cases of it benefiting my opponents.
Ok, cool. So let's a stop with this nonsense of telling me how orange man bad, because muh norms.
You're setting the threshold of "norm" precisely at, "taking control of the supreme court by refusing to confirm qualified appointees was Fine but taking control of the supreme court by adding more justices would be Bad." One heap is bigger than the other, but they're both heaps.
When did I start? Orange man bad (for me) because he opposes my interests and my ingroup. Whether or not he breaks norms doesn't matter.
If you think packing the court is fine, we can begin right now. Many Republican presidents could have done so during a number of years in the past. Isn't it odd they didn't?
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