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 -
While I broadly am inclined to agree with the overall thrust of your argument, this is not true. If you want to split hairs on "constitutional" then we'd have to agree on a definition of that to create a boundary of what counts. But off the top of my head of Court Cases, and Federal laws that Reds have imposed on Blues, there are many:
The Red tribe is not some innocent victim in this arena, the give as good as they get.
This is kinda a weird grab-bag. I don't think your point is wrong, per say, but the examples don't really fit at first glance.
I'm in a hurry so can't check precise details, but Janus is a union case and most unions are creations of federal law under the NLRA: Complaining about federal regulation allowing free speech or free association is kinda a 'get your government out of my medicaid' model.Nope, strike that; public sector side of AFSCME. I guess that does fit on the edges, although the financing and funding model is still a little fuzzy.Same for DADT, except even more, since the military isn't very Blue Tribe and it only applied there (and with some limited exceptions). DOMA only applied at the federal government level, and specifically didn't stop states from recognizing gay marriages locally.
Masterpiece Cake Shop just (infamously) held that a civil rights law's administrative bureau couldn't be openly hostile to the religious nature of its defendants.
Maybe 303 Creative/Espinoza/Carson/SFFA? But those are all antidiscrimination laws that progressives claim to champion; the main thread in each case was the neutral application of a longstanding rule that had been used for Blue Tribe ends at length. Even accepting the framework as 'laws that Reds have imposed on Blues', rather than 'laws that Reds have made sure didn't apply solely against Reds', they definitely can't be give as good as they got, given the wide scope these antidiscrimination laws have in Blue-friendly contexts.
I am just a legal layman, so I defer to you on some of the more technical minutiae. Many of these might be weaker because I personally agree with the red side of them. Trying to be fair forces me to argue for positions that I don't really agree with. But I do believe that this one-sided victimizing of Red-tribe belief is missing the forest for the trees.
But it refused to recognize state marriages as marriages, creating a double tier scheme where you were married in NY but not federally. I think explicitly refusing to recognize an official state sanctioned marriage and conferring those benefits would be an imposition. I think my scaffolding around this is that if Texas doesn't want to recognize a NY gay marriage, that's fine, its their prerogative. But if the federal government want to say the NY marriage is invalid federally they are denying the state's ability to officiate legal marriages according to the state's-populations desire. That's a legal imposition of values from 1 tribe to another.
I think Masterpiece is a weak example.
303 Creative still functions as a federal constitutional carveout from Colorado’s LGBTQ anti-discrimination law. Even if it applies a formally neutral First Amendment rule. Colorado is requiring a business that sells wedding websites to sell the same product to same-sex couples that it sells to opposite-sex couples.
Espinoza was about the state is trying to keep public money from flowing to religious institutions, consistent with its own church-state separation rule. That is a neutral rule being violated by another neural rule: the Free Exercise Clause. But the outcome was that the Red-tribe favored rule over-rode the Blue-tribe favored rule.
Carson is essentially similar in that Maine wanted to provide the rough equivalent of a secular public education for students who lack a local public school via a tuition reimbursement. And the court ruled that that was discriminatory towards religious students and institutions. This essentially hits the feeling of "We are being forced to subsidize something we morally oppose." This is probably pretty neutral if there are equivalent examples of conservative states being forced to subsidize things they reject. But off the top of my head, no conservative state has been forced to fund Planned Parenthood with its own money. (Medicaid does not count as it is a joint federal-state program) I think this one is a pretty strong example.
I think SFFA gets more into the weeds on what constitutes "Blue Tribe", as its a liberal vs progressive ideological fault line. It's not as clean but progressives are not really the anti-discrimination party, they are a racial/minority-spoils party. So idk if you can argue that they champion the anti-discrimination laws unless you autistically adhere to the definitions. SFFA is more like “a conservative/colorblind theory" of equality imposed over a "progressive/anti-subordination" theory of equality. It's a good comparison to the Voting Rights Act imposition.
This... gets messy, then. The underlying motivation for DOMA was Baehr v. Mike, the perception that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would require every state to instantly recognize the potential one-state gay marriages, and was signed into law by Bill Clinton with large bipartisan support. That makes it a very awkward fit into "Red Tribe vs Blue Tribe". Even assuming that frame, the federal benefits of marriage are limited and primarily focused to domains (tax deducations, military benefits) that don't match the normal personal/government-provided divide. State-married people under DOMA would still get state-specific benefits. It's not clear that there was any other equilibrium short of a) some consistent agreement that no one attempt those cases, cfe Windsor, or b) Red Tribe getting squished by
Blue TribeThree Gay Couples From Hawaii Specifically.If you put it like that, it sounds like SCOTUS stopped a Blue Tribe state squishing a Red Tribe person. I get what you're trying to motion toward, but there's not really a level of specificity where this was some new first step -- either there's a long series of First Amendment association cases that overturned Red Tribe laws predating this matter by decades and using this exact avenue, or there's a lot of anti-discrimination laws that required exactly this sort of active behavior targeting Red Tribers.
You're not going to find lawsuits, but the ACA required all states accepting funds to support gender therapy and any state accepting medicaid expansion plans to cover preventive contraceptive services. There was actually a big mess just last year about trying to throw (some) Planned Parenthood programs out. And before that there was the thing with the nuns? The biggest case was Pennsylvania, so purple state, but there were a bunch of follow-ons in deep red states. I'd normally put that in the marginal 'well, it is federal funding' bin, but there's a bunch of complex rules with matching state funds and punitive efforts for those states that didn't join, so it's still a pretty good if imperfect match.
But more generally yes, there were and are quite a lot of things like that.
But the rule in SFFA -- don't discriminate in education by race -- was used and is used very aggressively against Red Tribers first. It's famous for it! A President literally sent the national guard in over it. Even if you want to salami-slice the liberals, the progressives still use the very precise rule here to do everything from review college admissions programs to demand that Red Tribe elementary schools spend enormous amounts of money on ESL training. There was over fifty years of this before SFFA. There's a fair argument that it's not popular among the Blue Tribe normies (there was famously a California constitutional amendment prohibiting it... which immediately was ignored), but it's still a Blue Tribe rule that was used to smash Red Tribers long before the Red Tribe picked it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
By this reasoning any Red-friendly ruling is an "imposition".
Only so much as the original argument makes any Blue-Friendly ruling applied in a Federalist manner an “imposition” on the Red-Tribe.
Your "impositions" don't mandate that states do something. They mandate that states cannot do something that restricts other people. Counting that as an imposition strips the idea of meaning because that means that everything the Federal government does is an imposition. The original argument is not along those lines because it also involves telling the states to refrain from doing something to other people (Democrat-friendly gerrymandering).
Your own argument is nonsensical
and
Are the same thing...
Both are telling the states not to do something. Both are by definition, an imposition: the action or process of imposing something or of being imposed. The Federal government is imposing laws that affect the states to deny them ability to govern how their populous wants to. It is one Tribe, "imposing" on the other.
Yes, they are the same thing (with respect to reds acting against blue states). So neither of them are impositions of reds on blues.
What FCFromSSC said was that gerrymandering by Democrats (Black-Majority districts) was an imposition of blues on reds--the other way around--and that the reds have stopped that from happening. It is not in turn an imposition for the reds to stop an imposition, or the concept would be meaningless.
I'm not clear on what your argument or point is or if you are just being nitpicky.
FCFromSSC's argument was explicitly that Blues impose on Reds: gerrymandering and Roe vs Wade. This imposition is Blue-tribe forcing Red-tribe to not outlaw abortion, and forcing them to create districts for Black-Majorities
My corollary is that Red-tribe also imposes on Blue-tribe. I gave examples of Red-tribe forcing Blue-tribe to not recognize homosexual marriage, forcing them to allow denial of service based on speech grounds, forcing them to fund religious schools, forcing them to outlaw mandatory union participation, and forcing them to "outlaw" racial spoils based admissions
Both sides are preventing each other from disallowing actions via laws and affirmatively forcing the other to take actions that they don't agree with. This is the same thing as the original argument. Your argument appeared to be that one is not the same as the other. But your justification was to ignore half of the examples of Blue-tribe imposing on Red-tribe to make some weird argument that imposing by forcing a positive action is not the same as forcing a negative action (prevention of laws from disallowing). Not only is that cherry picking and nitpicky but its also incorrect.
If you argument is that Red-tribe ended Blue-tribes impositions, well, Stonewall was clearly ending Red-tribes impositions as well. Both sides end each others' impositions and both sides impose. Like I said, really not understanding your argument, I'm trying to be charitable here.
How is Masterpiece Cakeshop an imposition? The rule is "You can't force someone to bake a gay cake". The "imposition" here is that Cakeshop can't be forced to do something. That blue tribe is not allowed to force red tribe to do what blue tribe wants. It's not reciprocal -- red tribe isn't forcing blue tribe to do anything. You can still buy gay cake, you can still protest Cakeshop. That is, by definition, not an imposition. Perhaps it's an inconvenience. But if you redefine imposition that way, then every use of power is zero-sum. It's akin to denying neutrality itself. There really can't even be a sense of "Law" in this world, because every possible rule is just dressed-up naked force. Freedom of Religion is an imposition, because I'm forcing you to not suppress religions you don't like. Freedom of Speech is an imposition, because I'm forcing you to not suppress speech you don't like. Framed this way freedom itself can even be an aggressive act: I'm forcing you to accept that which you do not want to accept. Goodbye Westphalia!
This is just the price of living in a pluralistic society. Not everybody has the same opinions about gay marriage. What's the counter-argument, that Cakeshop constitutes unacceptable discrimination and should be barred from the marketplace? But the Cakeshop position was basically a universal belief for the entirety of human history, and gay marriage only became law about ten years ago. Everybody must be forced to accept these rights that were just discovered, even at the expense of other traditional rights. Then there's really no such thing as human rights either, it's all just staring down the barrels of a gun. (And as cynical as we all might be about arbitrary human constructs, I think the existence of human rights is good and not a concept worth dismantling.)
Similar arguments could be made about many of your other suggested impositions, although at this time I leave working through each as an exercise to the reader.
Mate, no offense, but from my observations you are the definition of a partisan tribal warrior. Discussing anything with you is an exercise in intellectual mutual masturbation. The only exercise being left to the reader here is whether engaging with you is worth the effort.
I'm not that interested.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But the examples are both in the same direction.
FCFromSSC said that blues are imposing on reds, with the implication that stopping them is not reds imposing on blues (because they're stopping them, and that doesn't count).
Your examples are also reds stopping blues, and therefore are also not reds imposing on blues.
You are trying to create a parallelism between "blues imposing on reds" and "reds imposing on blues", but you can't do that, because those are opposite directions and the examples are happening in the same direction.
Hmmm, I think I understand your point. But it is unclear to me how you arrive at this:
My examples are of Reds imposing on Blues. Unless you think Blue states wanting to recognize gay marriage is an imposition on Red states? DOMA is not stopping blues from imposing, it itself is imposing.
Could you clarify how those examples are of Red's stopping Blues from imposing on Reds?
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