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 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.
More options
Context Copy link