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 -
I think you need more than the presidency to do some of those things. The 15th Amendment forbids disenfranchising people on account of race (and the 19th on account of sex), and the President doesn't have the power to abolish elections or control the legislature/judiciary.
Courts have read some very expensive definitions of "franchise" (see Gingles, which is admittedly under SCOTUS review at the moment), and it's not impossible to see something like a policy of "must make as many majority-minority districts as possible" (which isn't that different from the Louisiana v. Callais case previously mentioned) would probably get past at least a few blue judges, although probably not the current high court.
More options
Context Copy link
And the 2nd claims that the people's right to bear arms may not be infringed, and the 1st states that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Seems to me that the Amendments are simply words on an old sheet of paper if someone doesn't want to respect them.
My point is that you do need either the ability to repeal those amendments, or a SCOTUS which will ignore them in dereliction of its duty (and packing the SCOTUS needs the legislature as well as the executive).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link