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 -
Because we're talking about how to fix these vulnerabilities that we supposedly have (but nobody can prove we have). Even if it were, a change should be looked at in terms of what it will and won't accomplish. If people are getting into your house somehow, why are you talking about bolting your second story windows shut if you leave your door unlocked? You're technically making your house more secure, but that's not the problem.
Second of all, "security" isn't inherently worth it. A grocery store could require keys to get into the "employee only" section, but if no customers are walking in then it's not just "well it's more secure" it's "I spent time adding locks and now my employees constantly have to lock and unlock it just to solve a non-problem."
Literally every crime has a chance to fuck up. That's why we've caught the people that we have. The reason I keep asking you how these people are supposedly committing the fraud (and you STILL have not answered by the way) is because if you're showing up in the same place multiple times there's some chance of being recognized. If you're driving around that lowers the risk significantly but even then there's the chance that voter turnout fluctuates every year. So even if you steal the identity of someone who votes there's a chance you pick someone who decided to this time.
The chance is based on how the crime is supposedly committed. In short, the reason I pulled the 1% chance out of my ass is because I had to, because you keep asking me questions and never fucking answer mine.
And here you do the thing where you neglect to clip the part that answers that.
"if you take the position that your opponents are literally only doing this because they have your worst interests at heart (talking specifically about the Republican legislators) then there's no point giving them an inch because they're just going to try and find a way to take more."
As above, you avoid engaging with the idea that people think Republican laws are actively intended to harm Democratic voter turnout.
Upsides of police cameras:
Can prove or disprove if a civilian was resisting arrest
Can prove or disprove accusations of police brutality
The downside of police cameras:
Cost
Officers have to spend time using them
maintaining the footage.
Upsides of voter ID
Makes people feel the election is secure (but probably not really because they'll just make another unfounded accusation)
Stops people from wasting their time thinking they can steal an election where 160 million people voted by casting a single fraudulent vote LOL.
Downsides of voter ID
Some people will have to update their IDs or not be able to vote because we have to stop something from happening that nobody can even prove is happening more than a few times TOTAL.
Republicans may or may not pull some other bullshit to make it harder to vote.
To go with your example, I don't have to prove someone entered through an open door, to make the argument that an open door to be a vulnerability.
Checking for ID is locking your front door.
Depending on what you have inside the "employee only" section, putting locks on it is absolutely worth the time, even if no one tried to enter there yet, and your approach is insane.
Ok, but if you don't know what that chance is, you can't tell me whether the low number of detected crimes is due to there not being many crimes, or of a piss poor detection rate.
Because it doesn't answer it. The whole point of adding extra conditions to prevent the issues you're worrying about.
Also, if you just won't agree to it, even if your conditions are met, than the whole "Dems say they will agree if voter ID is free and can be gotten conveniently for people who have limited time/transportation." was just a straight up lie.
I'm not avoiding it, I'm telling you it's not relevant. It was specifically made irrelevant by the "if voter ID is free and can be gotten conveniently for people who have limited time/transportation".
Those are literally the same dynamics as the police cams. Your downsides boil down to cost, and the upsides of body cams, and all the "Republicans will just make up something else" is literally what happened with the Democrats and body cams.
It isn't though. To steal any major election, you would need at minimum thousands of votes in multiple locations, significantly more if you do not live in one of the relatively few parts of our massive country that are very close. If you think that the election isn't secure, the question to be asking isn't "how would someone commit fraud?" it's "how would someone commit fraud thousands of times?" In the same way that if you think your store is having large amounts of money stolen, you don't start by checking the pennies in the cash register.
And yet the stock area at my grocery door completely lacks that, because employees are coming and going through there all the time. There's nothing stopping me from entering it, but it'd be a stupid idea because I'd have to do this crime in front of other people. Also they probably have cameras, a form of security that does not slow people from their day-to-day tasks.
Again, to determine whether the detection rate is piss poor or not depends on the scenario we're preventing, and you still won't tell me what scenario you think we're preventing. And even a piss poor detection rate should turn up more than 34 examples, unless the real number is very small.
Because the fun thing about politics is the large amount of room you have to be sneaky about things. Like how the DMCA allows you to make personal backups of software you've bought, but it's illegal to break the copyright protection preventing you from performing the copy. The concern is that Republicans simply renege or sabotage their own compromise. For instance, by having DMVs closed or moved further away in poorer areas.
Motive here does matter, because if you think the other party is trying to screw you over, you have to sit there and wonder what loopholes aren't discussed at all but you technically didn't forbid. The easy way is simply to not negotiate. I think that the Democratic voter is looking at it on the surface level "If voter ID is free then my concern is addressed" but Democratic lawmakers are looking at it from the perspective of how to prevent any games before they're allowed to start. If Republicans would actually commit to "voter ID is free," I'd be fine with it as well but I don't think they will.
Have Democrats? I remember Dean posted an article a month ago, but I don't think it really amounted to much. I think helping the police avoid false accusations was a pretty good upside as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link