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 -
The CCW permitee objections to this is (at least) two-fold, one being related to pratical carrying, and the other to the environment that these regulations live in.
First, the practical consideration: If you as a gun owner want to be able to carry your gun outside your home, prior to these laws being passed, the presumption is that you can carry except where forbidden by law, or where prohibited by posted signage. If the default presumption is that carrying is allowed, you can watch for signs indicating businesses that are open to the public where your firearm is not allowed, and avoid carrying in those places, but otherwise live you life. Since legal definitions of sensitive places are static, and most businesses do not post a sign disallowing firearms, odds are that you can both carry and go about your day. If the presumption is that carrying is disallowed, your ability to use your concealed carry permit to carry firearms is effectively limited only to those places that explicitly invite you to do so, which limits your ability to carry at all.
Environmental/explicit permission concerns: if you are in environments where concealed carrying is explicitly prohibited except by explicit permission, businesses that wish to allow concealed carry must provide explicit signage (New York's language requires "clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or by otherwise giving express consent"). But this signage also marks the business as explictly pro-gun, which may carry negative business implications that tacitly allowing concealed carry would not, encouraging those that may otherwise allow you to carry in their environment to avoid providing you the necessary permission.
Given that businesses could previously disallow firearms with a sign, and that states such as New York enacted these immediately after the Supreme Court banned "may issue" concealed carry schemes, these laws seemed aimed at reducing the usefulness of the "shall issue" CCW permits these states are now required to issue.
More options
Context Copy link