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 -
Because, according to Trump, the blue cities are allowing violence against Federal immigration authorities in those cities.
I realize that it’s probably more complicated, but that sounds like a real own goal for states’ rights enthusiasts.
I’m not clear on what all the federal government gets to compel from its subsidiaries. I have the vague impression it’s whatever it wants, but only if it threatens to withhold highway funding.
States rights has never been about preventing the feds from enforcing legitimate federal laws. It has been about saying certain laws are illegitimate (not applicable to immigration), certain laws are unwise on the federal level (same), and that the federal government can't force states to enforce laws they dont consider moral (also no applicable unless there is a new U of I Law Review article I am unaware of arguing arson, aggravated battery, and and attempt murder should be decriminalized).
More options
Context Copy link
As someone who leans more to states rights than not - I don’t think it is, actually.
The usual answer would be that each level of government is responsible for what only it can handle, and nothing more (in an ideal world). Territorial Sovereignty (whether that be through border control, military action, international trade, etc) are exactly the sort of things a federal government should be the authority on.
That being said, I’m Canadian, and I have no idea if that’s how it works out in practice in the US - but it is at least not inconsistent.
More options
Context Copy link
The states are not (formally) subsidiaries to the Federal Government, and the anti-commandeering doctrine means the Federal Government cannot compel states to assist it in enforcement of Federal law. However, this does not mean states can forbid the Feds from enforcing Federal law themselves, nor interfere with that enforcement. In these cases the Feds have been enforcing Federal law themselves, and the interference has been from private parties ("protestors"), not the state governments. The Feds, then claim the authority to bring in the National Guard to protect their own law enforcement officers -- this is the "protective power" which is somewhat controversial but not unprecedented.
Note that the various [StateName] National Guards, despite the names, are not actually state entities; they are under dual control -- normally state control, but they can be "federalized" under various conditions.
Lurking not very far in the background is the Insurrection Act, which allows the use of the military (including but not limited to the National Guard) when the President declares certain conditions have been met.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which would be much more upsetting in a country where Warren v DC was not a thing.
Warren v. DC is even more upsetting because it's in DC where at the time you couldn't prepare to defend yourself effectively (with a gun) either. Probably still can't. However, the Federal Government is not subject to such restrictions and CAN defend its agents (either through the protective power if it holds up, or via the Insurrection Act), and I see no reason to be upset at them doing it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link