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 -
It isn’t nitpicking to figure out what the words “subject to the jurisdiction” means.
Clearly there is a limitation (otherwise no need to insert the phrase). The real question is how far do you read that limitation.
The reality is that neither side has a good answer to this. A plain meaning of the phrase would mean anyone who US law applies to. However, that can't be correct because we know there are two groups that it never applied to until statutes were written: AmerIndians, and Diplomats and their kin.
BUT, AmerIndians and Diplomats and their kin have been consistently prosecuted for crimes, brought into courts on civil actions, etc going back to the founding. If a diplomat commits a serious crime on US soil, they are almost always prosecuted, and the visiting nation basically always waives immunity. Same was true for AmerIndians committing crimes, but states wouldn't even bother to talk to the Tribe in question. If you were a drunk Indian that killed an American you were just tried and hanged quite quickly.
So the so called "plain reading" regarding whether American laws apply to you is just a straight out red herring. Its wrong, very wrong.
So PROBABLY something along the loyalty questions that have been often remarked on in some cases in the 1800s is what it actually means. The real problem with those is that its mostly subjective question of someone's mind, and probably should have gone the other way in Wong Kim Arc if it really is about loyalty. They were still Chinese citizens, not American citizens at the time. What side of the war would an illegal immigrant or tourist pick in a war between America and Mexico/China/Etc. The real answer for most of them is the side they think is going to win. National loyalty is not a quick thing to develop, it takes generations of being in the same place and cultivating ties to the community. If we applied a loyalty test many 5th generation people would not pass. Heck, nowadays many descendants of founding fathers prefer enemy countries to prevail against the US.
I agree that it is complex. Plain reading is also dangerous when 150ish years removed (ie what was it understood to mean in the late 1800s).
My response isn’t to say “it is obvious.” My response is to say it isn’t obvious and it isn’t nitpicking.
The other poster tried to compare Roe (a case about unenumerated right that seemingly wasn’t recognized anywhere before) and this one is about untangling a challenging phrase. They just aren’t the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link