site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   25863 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 2025

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I really don't understand how we got into this mess of congressional redistricting. We don't "redistrict" state lines every few years to make senate seats "fairer" in any sense. Why didn't congressional districts just follow this obviously parallel pattern using (e.g.) counties? For that matter, why didn't this get left up to a state-by-state basis to determine how congressional seats are apportioned so that some states could gerrymander if they wanted and others could have a fixed-for-forever set of districts? I don't know if this would result in better outcomes, but it would certainly be more transparent and consistent.

I would love it if anyone could provide a detailed history of this whole mess that starts from the articles of confederation until now.

The Senate was designed from the beginning to give outsized representation to small populations. The House was designed to give proportional representation based on population. Making the House into a Senate with one extra step buggers that design.

But also just look at the numbers for New York State circa 2000 to 2010, in just one census. Percentage wise the fastest growing counties grew by 10%, the fastest shrinking ones shrank by 10%, by raw numbers +50k vs -30k. Take that over a very long time frame and you would have absolutely bonkers districts.

The bigger problem with redistricting is that before we get into crass political motives there are a whole bunch of different ways that people want the congressional districts to be drawn. Everyone wants geometrical simplicity, the smallest number of lines and vertices possible to delineate an area, else they mock the complicated shapes drawn by the map makers. Everyone wants demographic consistency, we should feel some commonality with our fellow voters. Everyone wants geographic defensibility, the district should constitute a defined region that is used in common understanding and not a random slice of people, the line shouldn't run right through a neighborhood. Basically the ideal in people's heads is square districts that contain a clear common identity.

And that's basically impossible while also achieving the same population, but also changes over time. When I was born my neighborhood was much less developed and more rural, people around here felt more in common with the areas north and west of us, went to the same John Deere dealerships and farm shows as the hicks. Now, after decades of homebuilding, the same area has a population that has more in common with the city to the east of us, going to the same coffee shops and yoga studios. A steady district containing the same geographic area would fail on multiple fronts over time.

It sounds like you're also interested in context long before the modern era. For that, probably the most important thing to check out is the debate over the Apportionment Act of 1842. Before then, plenty of states used "general tickets". I can't describe it any better than here:

Under this system, voters could cast as many votes as there were seats to be filled in each state, while voting for each candidate only once. In practice, this typically led to voters selecting each candidate on a slate provided by a political party. Proponents argued this method led to more cohesive party delegations, and states that used general tickets almost uniformly sent single-party delegations to Congress.

In 1842, Congress mandated that the states create districts for federal congressional representatives sent to the House. Thus almost inherently requiring some form of redistricting. If you don't make adjustments over time, you almost surely end up with "rotten boroughs" over time, not unlike what was described by the Reynolds v. Sims wiki article @Lewis2 linked:

for example, in the Nevada Senate, the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had approximately 127,000 people.

That's unlikely to be politically tenable really long-term, so the main questions become who does it, how often do they do it, and what rules do they have to follow when doing it. Even if you want to say, "We're just not going to do it and keep the same districts forever," you're likely to still do it eventually, just when it becomes so politically untenable that you end up with a crisis, as in the Historia Civilis video concerning Britain. And of course, since it's so hard to find durable political compromises that extend well over time concerning those three main questions, we also ended up with judicial meddling in the process.

Districting in general is A Hard Problem.

Thank you especially for the link about the Apportionment Act of 1842. That's exactly the type of reference I was looking for!

Reynolds v. Sims has a lot to do with it. To summarize, in 1964, the Court ruled that having fixed districts (e.g., one state senator per county) unconstitutionally violates the “one man, one vote” rule.

Ah, Reynolds v. Sims, the case that declared the constitutionally defined structure of the United States Senate unconstitutional.

The justices did address that complaint. tl;dr: States are sovereign, counties are not.

Much has been written since our decision in Baker v. Carr about the applicability of the so-called federal analogy to state legislative apportionment arrangements. After considering the matter, the court below concluded that no conceivable analogy could be drawn between the federal scheme and the apportionment of seats in the Alabama Legislature under the proposed constitutional amendment. We agree with the District Court, and find the federal analogy inapposite and irrelevant to state legislative districting schemes. Attempted reliance on the federal analogy appears often to be little more than an after-the-fact rationalization offered in defense of maladjusted state apportionment arrangements. The original constitutions of 36 of our States provided that representation in both houses of the state legislatures would be based completely, or predominantly, on population. And the Founding Fathers clearly had no intention of establishing a pattern or model for the apportionment of seats in state legislatures when the system of representation in the Federal Congress was adopted. Demonstrative of this is the fact that the Northwest Ordinance, adopted in the same year, 1787, as the Federal Constitution, provided for the apportionment of seats in territorial legislatures solely on the basis of population.

The system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress is one ingrained in our Constitution, as part of the law of the land. It is one conceived out of compromise and concession indispensable to the establishment of our federal republic. Arising from unique historical circumstances, it is based on the consideration that, in establishing our type of federalism a group of formerly independent States bound themselves together under one national government. Admittedly, the original 13 States surrendered some of their sovereignty in agreeing to join together "to form a more perfect Union." But at the heart of our constitutional system remains the concept of separate and distinct governmental entities which have delegated some, but not all, of their formerly held powers to the single national government. The fact that almost three-fourths of our present States were never, in fact, independently sovereign does not detract from our view that the so-called federal analogy is inapplicable as a sustaining precedent for state legislative apportionments. The developing history and growth of our republic cannot cloud the fact that, at the time of the inception of the system of representation in the Federal Congress, a compromise between the larger and smaller States on this matter averted a deadlock in the Constitutional Convention which had threatened to abort the birth of our Nation. In rejecting an asserted analogy to the federal electoral college in Gray v. Sanders, we stated:

We think the analogies to the electoral college, to districting and redistricting and to other phases of the problems of representation in state or federal legislatures or conventions, are inapposite. The inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns, validated the collegiate principle despite its inherent numerical inequality, but implied nothing about the use of an analogous system by a State in a statewide election. No such specific accommodation of the latter was ever undertaken, and therefore no validation of its numerical inequality ensued.

Political subdivisions of States—counties, cities, or whatever—never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities. Rather, they have been traditionally regarded as subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State to assist in the carrying out of state governmental functions. As stated by the Court in Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, these governmental units are "created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them," and the "number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [them]… and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the State." The relationship of the States to the Federal Government could hardly be less analogous.

I understand their reasoning, I just think it's a dog's breakfast. The fact that the Senate and electoral college were products of political compromise based on the specific context of the time tells us nothing about how the sovereign states may design their own electoral systems. What place does the Supreme Court have telling the states whether local conditions call for a geographically apportioned legislative house or not? The Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress (and, by extension, the federal courts) the power to interfere in state elections only to the extent necessary to ensure equal protection of the law, and I do not think that power extends to invalidating longstanding and facially neutral electoral systems.

Thank you! Reading through the article was very informative. At the end of the article there is a quote from a law professor that this was the "best Supreme Court decision since 1960". I would love a follow on detailed analysis about legal opinions on this court case and the extent to which conservatives/liberals have different opinions.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats