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 -
Honestly I hate this view. Law shouldn’t be debatable. It’s should be black and white. And this I think will increasingly be an issue. Sure I can nerd out and think the debates are intellectually stimulating, but at the end of the day a Dem will vote one way and a GOP the other way. You might as well just nominating Ketanjis who might write poorly but vote your way versus a Scalia. It’s basically just a super Senate. The opinions are just a game for some nerds.
A big reason we got here is because justices thought it was an interpretive game to twist some words to get the political outcome they wanted instead of calling balls and strikes.
Law is not Justice. It's about society trying its best to deliver something close to Justice. Why must law be "black and white"? Is it some notion of yours that things must be legible and understandable and if only everyone comes to the same conclusion from the same set of facts? But that isn't the case isn't even on the most mundane of things. Some people like Italian food, some don't. Some love horror movies, some don't. Some like running, some don't. Some likes this toy and not that toy. It's the same set of facts, very different conclusions. Now with matters of property and life and death, people will have very different opinions.
It's always been an issue. It ebbs and flows. People are always disappointed in each other choices and opinions all the time (religion, monarchs, slavery, race, relationship preferences, pronouns, immigration, etc.). The basis of a society is the ability to smooth out these differences OR live with each other in spite of the differences. Preferably with little to no violence.
From the same West Wing episode:
"Plenty of good laws [was] written by the voice of moderation"
"[But] who writes the extraordinary dissent? The one-man minority opinion whose time hasn't come. But 20 years later a court clerk digs it up at 3 in the morning"
Everyone has an opinion and can add, detract, modify, subtract, stimulate, influence, persuade others in society. Would I rather have a better writer and persuader in a liberal justice? Absolutely. And to be fair, Ketanji hasn't finished her term, nor has the long view of history descended after the present day has forgotten about her to truly analyze and evaluate her whole body of work. The final word has not yet been written on Ketanji, nor even a revival, as opinions turns and goes. I understand the need for answers now, immediately, full present. But look, you are here, I am here. As pointed out in a discussion last week, me, you, everybody, seems to have wildly different views. I don't know how many of us will actually influence society as a whole, but "no raindrop think it causes the flood" and "to change the world start with changing yourself" perfectly summarizes my thinking to this.
I reject your view of the world that things must be "perfect" and that "balls and strikes" can be called. Reality is way too messy and have way too many details.
Even if I came back to your analogy of how law should be like math, there are plenty of things that are "ideal" but can never be "real". For example, tangent waves, there are no real life examples of tangent waves. There are plenty of things that are modeled by tangent waves at close enough significant figures that it doesn't matter but no true always-reaching-infinite-slope tangent waves.
Or there are plenty of things in math that are "black and white" in one context, but is totally different in another. A 3-sided polygon (a triangle) can’t have three 90-degree angles in flat 2D geometry. But draw the triangle on a sphere, and suddenly it can. The context changed, and the rule broke immediately.
Also btw, did you forget the apocryphal legend of Pythagoras and the killing of Hippasus for the exposure of irrational numbers? Life is a series of games, and the game changes under your feet all the time.
I am not asking for a perfect system. The Law though is different. It’s suppose to be blind, fair, and unbiased. That’s the mythology of the law. So the idea that 10 or more viewpoints at UC exists means there is a lot of bias in the law.
We have people who are allowed to have bias in our system. Elected officials. They can of course be tyrannical. I can and other citizens can have opinions on them and their actions. They can do bad things like legalize slavery. It’s not the job of a judge to have an opinion on slavery. If the law written by elected officials says that you are a slave then a judge is required to rule you are a slave if you challenge it in court. That is black and white. The Law of the Land. We have a system for people to have bias and it’s called Democracy.
So you are asking for a perfect system? Or at the very least, that people has to perfectly attune to the textual reading of the laws? You saw in the other example https://novehiclesinthepark.com/ of how that quickly becomes untenable no? Why must we wallow in the disappointment of cynicism? Why isn't optimistic realism (or I suppose optimistic nihilism) an option for you? (You've obviously already rejected the delusional mythological idealism).
If you have a society of peoples that decided to enslave others, don't worry, there will plenty of judges who will rule slaves are slaves, and the judges that don't won't be judges of that society for very long.
In this whole conversation, I've come to realize that you have many things you consider in very black and white processes. Law has to be black and white. Democracy is allowed to be not black and white, Law is not allowed. Do you realize that in your thinking?
First, I specifically said I do not want Judges to be a perfect system. I specifically cited slavery which is not perfect for a judge to declare someone a slave. It is their role in our society.
You shouldn’t cite “no vehicles in a park” because multiple people have responded that it was EASY to understand the rule. Vehicles has a specific meaning in the vernacular. We understand what it means. (As an aside in Constitutional Law one issue is the vernacular changes on 200 year old laws).
On the point of slaves being ruled slaves I am specifically saying Judges often do NOT follow the law. You seem fine with this. I am not. This is why you like the debate societies of Westwing where the person who says the most interesting argument gets to ignore the law and just do what the want to do.
“In this whole conversation, I've come to realize that you have many things you consider in very black and white processes. Law has to be black and white. Democracy is allowed to be not black and white, Law is not allowed. Do you realize that in your thinking?”
I 100% realize that is what I am thinking. It’s black and white. People who are elected get to have biases in decision making. People working as judges do not. This is called rule of law. It’s the same as the difference between an engineer that designs trains and one who operates trains. Designers get to have biases on what they want. Conductors operate the train that was designed.
And since well the people in The West Wing did not do Rule of Law I no longer see why I should play their game anymore as a Republican. Just give me 6 SC Justices with 80 IQ who vote the way I want them to vote.
If a society democratically, representative or otherwise, legalize slavery, do you expect judges in that society to uphold such a law?
You saw the actual statistical results captured by the site right? That 20% thought a horse is not a vehicle while 80% thought it is right? That there are many things easily agreed to by a large majority, but then with differing details, quickly, opinions diverged right? Also, "multiple people have responded that it was EASY", how do you know that's not just a loud minority? Also just because the majority agreed on something, when does it become tyranny of the majority?
I would appreciate you don't draw up a straw-man of myself so you can fight. I do prefer following the law. I also do prefer judges follow the law. There are plenty of supreme court decisions I dislike but I think is following the constitutional law (for example Dobbs). What I am arguing for is that: you might think they are doing "interpretive word games", but for them, they have strongly held beliefs on how to interpret the law. You've essentially already pre-categorized any way of thinking that isn't like yours as to be "fast and loose" and therefore dismiss the end results.
Well guess what, it's because I changed my mind after listening to people who I disagree with when they make a "rational" point. I think we are similar in this seeing as we're both here, in a place where debate and communication is prized, where opinions and ideas can change. Don't you see? Debate, winning it in public, finish or re-opening a fight, everything contributes to how people will understand and apply the law, or influence how laws are written or stricken down in the future. That is the game!
This brings me back up to the very first question. If a society democratically, representative or otherwise, legalize slavery, do you expect judges in that society to uphold such a law? Is this what you expect? Is this what you want?
"Well that's just your opinion man". It's a very holier-than-thou attitude where you get to define what the "Rule of Law" is and then therefore can decide who is a cheater or not. When that's the point, the one who wins decides what the law means. Also, because if you don't persuade people but just force people, that's just plain tyranny.
If the Judges do not uphold the law, then power does not flow through the law. If the law does not channel power then it is pointless. People wish for power. To the extent that you tell them that power is channeled by law, when it is not in fact channeled by law, you are lying to them. When they figure out that you have lied to them in this way, you will lose the power to persuade them about anything ever again; if you will lie in this way, you will lie in any way.
Right, but power remains, and the law would have been changed to whatever power wants it to be. I was simply trying to find what is the true extent of what @Opt-out really means by his philosophy. I would have been happy if they said "yes, the judge should uphold the law".
I would certainly argue that it's better for the judges to uphold a law against slavery. Judges not upholding the law fixes nothing and breaks much; the win is temporary, the costs are lasting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link