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 federal election system is already biased heavily towards Republicans to begin with what with the electoral college (both Dubya and Trump 1 benefited from that) and congress apportionments. A state like California has 20 million people per senator, Mississippi is almost 1.5 million. A citizen in Mississippi has more than 10x the influence in the Senate than one in California, entirely based on state lines.
I had ChatGPT find some information on this and due to this blue states even on lower estimates have twice the people per senator than red ones. In the strongly partisan states, it's almost 4x!
While the house of reps doesn't have such a bias (or at least a very very minimal one), even if the Dems could manage to lean the house countrywide towards themselves it still leaves them 1v2 in biased institutions. (Argubly 1v2.5 or something given that the bias in the Senate and presidency also means more likely to get SC picks through). And that's a big if.
Well, no, you didn't.
You had an probabilistic compiler assemble what would be the most probable completion to a prompt you wrote. There was no real data outside of what you offered in your own prompt.
Feature, not a bug. Federalist 10 does a better job of laying out the argument than I can, but my best attempt is that factions are inevitable and factions look out for themselves. Factions will often try to pass laws that are bad not only for their opponents, but for the polity at large and that infringe upon the rights of individuals.
If you're after a "pure" majority rule democracy with no checks and balances, you're going to have a bad time. It's just a matter of when it is your turn in the barrel, not if.
Yeah and it turns out what would be the most probable completion to a question asking for information with accompanying sources to a question is information with sources, which I can then go to and read and link. It got me a writeup from an associate professor at George Mason University.
Taiwan is the 14th highest GDP per capita and they elect their leaders through simple FPTP. But we don't even have to go to foreign nations, we have proof it's ok right at home.
State governorships all around the country don't use their own internal versions of the electoral college, and yet they seem to be generally fine. Same with many cities and their mayoral elections. 50 State elections + god knows how many city elections don't seem to have some unique glaring issues that implementing an electoral college system in them would fix.
It's quite telling that even the most ardent supporters of the federal electoral college don't seem to be calling for it in their own states. Do they hate their state having a healthier democracy?
I wouldn't refer to Taiwan as any sort of a bastion of popular democracy. It's better than it was but a lot of fucking around there.
No country or system will ever be perfect, especially not for one right next door to an actively hostile country 60x bigger constantly trying to interfere behind the scenes. But by the metrics the Taiwanese system doesn't seem to be much worse. Things like approval ratings are at somewhat similar levels to other democracies for example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Senators shouldn't represent people anyways. They should represent state governments like they were supposed to. And California should split into multiple states if it wants better representation in the senate. But they'd be dumb to do so because they get far more government control of the country by just having their state legislature act like a mini-national government and pass a bunch of regulations. Corporations/manufacturers are basically forced to comply because of the size of the California market. I'm unsympathetic to these complaints. On paper they have less representation, in reality they have an outsized influence.
In a world where government is representative of the constituents, these are effectively the same thing.
Yeah, it's a stupid system that would reward behavior like this.
They don't have to, it's just that simple market dynamics and efficiency of scale generally means making just version X is better than making X and Y unless there's serious demand for deviation. Now there is enough demand spread across the other states that if consumers in the rest of the US really cared, many companies would do a version Y for them. A state like Texas or Florida could easily do some form of anti-regulation too if they really wanted.
Issue is, the consumers often don't actually care that much and sometimes even like it. Texas and Florida don't enact such opposite regulation laws because they don't really want that or care much to begin with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link