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 -
Radio is now a "medical treatment" in the sense that unlicensed people are no longer allowed to do it without a license from the board, yes. It's not a medical treatment under the lay interpretation of those words. Terms within a legal context sometimes mean something different than terms outside a legal context. It's quite obnoxious as a layperson trying to understand laws.
You have to call back to the original post. One of the questions that the Supreme Court is wrestling with in the case is "what is medicine". /u/cjet79 proposed the definition of:
What this implies, is that a state could give itself the legal power to suppress any form of speech by merely making whatever form of speech is in question require a medical license from the state medical board.
My understanding is that this is basically accurate and that by redefining certain types of speech as "professional conduct" states can indeed regulate those types of speech. But that the courts will slap them down if they try to push it too far.
That said, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and the fact that you see that disclaimer everywhere is a case in point.
Well the question is whether the court will indeed slap them down right now.
My point is that if you adopt the medical board framing, you basically give away the cow to anyone who wants it.
Ah I see, this isn't a hypothetical. I would expect too many special interests (lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc) for the Supreme Court to take the free speech maximalist position but I hope to be wrong.
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