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 -
Culture-war-related court opinion:
NB (♂) and LB (♀) are in the process of divorcing. LB obtains a restraining order against NB, claiming that NB (1) has been harassing LB both in person and via text, (2) owns a gun, and (3) "has made vague statements that LB believes are suicidal".
In this state, a domestic-violence restraining order requires the officer to seize the defendant's (1) guns and (2) permit to buy guns. After being made aware of the restraining order's existence, NB goes to the police station, where an officer asks him about the gun. However, NB cannot remember where he left the gun! At first he says he left it at his cousin's house (intentionally, to prevent his anger issues from leading to violence during the divorce process). Then he says it's in a storage unit. And finally he remembers that, though he originally left it with his cousin, the cousin later gave it to NB's sister and informed NB of the further transfer. He retrieves the gun from his sister's house and gives it to the police.
The trial judge credits NB's claim that this was just a failure of memory in a stressful situation, rather than an intentional series of lies. However, the trial judge also finds that "when possessing a firearm one must have it guarded, protected, and secured where you can control that possession, and clearly that wasn't the case for a period of time", so NB lacks the "essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm", "it is not in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare" for NB to possess guns, his gun is forfeited to the government, and his permit to purchase guns is permanently revoked. The appeals panel affirms.
Yeah, that sounds about standard for New Jersey, and why The_Nybbler's so direct to say that they've made the Second Amendment a nullity: "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril." Also a large point to why GVRO/Red Flag laws are given such skepticism. It's not hard to see this as what their advocates want, where the standard of proof to remove someone's rights is nearly nil, and they must jump high and arbitrary hurdles to get those rights back. And, of course, none of the takings clause people are going to come climbing out of the woodwork for this stuff.
But no serious org is going try to take this sorta case -- both because of its optics, and also just because he didn't cross every i and dot every t to preserve issues and present evidence perfectly -- and neither would the New Jersey State Supreme Court nor SCOTUS take it up if they did. Nobody that isn't already pro-gun is going to be appalled that they've read Rahimi to cordon Heller to a nullity, even a lot of self-described libertarians. And it shows how badly calibrated anyone must be to expect a 'bank shot' SCOTUS case that rules against its specific person while protecting the class of rights that person was trying to appeal toward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link