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 -
There's multiple major issues with this.
The US is supposed to be an individualist nation where personal responsibility is the key factor. If you are innocent, you do not have your rights infringed. Dismantling this concept means destroying a key piece of America and will have knock on effects.
Once you do start just infringing on rights, then the path has been opened to infringe even more. There are some that are riskier than others here, a ban on gun ownership from convicted felons is harder to scale up. But a ban on "Group with X% risk" is incredibly easy to transform into "Group with Y% (y<x) risk is now also included". If you won't tolerate 40% risk, then why tolerate 35? If you won't tolerate 35%, then why not crack down on 30%? Gun rights groups know this and speak out against firearms bans of minority groups.
Most gun crimes are not done with legally owned guns to begin with and therefore cracking down on legal ownership doesn't really have too much an effect except in the indirect sense of preventing irresponsible or corrupt owners/sellers from being a source of illegal guns. But if that is the basis of the argument, then anyone who leaves a gun in a car or sitting on the countertop or whatever else should also be held responsible then.
Honestly I just wanted to have fun with courts making up law on (1) but it does seem from a common good perspective that could make America a lot safer.
(2) In my opinion the 2nd Amendment passed by slippery slope arguments a long time ago. I think it guarantees tanks. They’ve banned hand guns. I don’t even like guns. Just my autism seems evident to me the amendment guaranteed a right to do nation-state level violence. I think the words are already being ignored. (3) we can prosecute illegal transfers and not safely taking care of guns.
Words on paper have no power of law if the government just ignores them which is what I believe has happened with the 2nd. Perhap for good reasons they ignore them.
I'm not sure that's true, why should we interpret a nuke under the right to bear arms to begin with? Nuclear weapons are a modern creation and thus we could easily claim they are exist in a different category than conventional arms and thus not under the protections even by a purely textual reading.
Illegal transfers are already illegal! Stealing guns out of someone's car is already illegal!
The inclusion of “necessity to preserve a free state”, the founders be rebels, an early act in the war was securing cannons. I think all these point in the direction that the amendment wasn’t just to protect yourself from your neighbor but to wage war against the sovereign or an invasionary force. All of that would include full military capability. There is no better weapon at preventing occupation than nukes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link