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 -
I think you're missing my go-to explanation. The conservatives on the Supreme Court want there to be a right to keep and bear arms for legal debating society reasons; it fits their judicial philosophy. However, except Thomas, none of the justices actually want people to be able to own and carry weapons. They are perfectly happy to let anti-gun circuit courts do the dirty work of reinterpreting Bruen into nothingness, and to not correct them (though they do correct the Fifth Circuit when it takes gun rights seriously)
In fact, the law of the land now is not Bruen but Rahimi, specifically the part of Rahimi which noted that there was historical precedent for laws against going armed to the terror of the public. And what "going armed to the terror of the public" is, is entirely up to the several states. Combine that with the 3D printing cases, and what the 2nd Amendment effectively says is "Notwithstanding any other part of this Constitution, the power of Congress and the several States to regulate anything to do with arms shall not be questioned." And this is as pro-gun a court as we're likely to ever get ever get. The Second Amendment is done; that's all folks.
Or, framed slightly differently, SCOTUS interprets the second amendment as permitting states to broadly regulate citizen ownership and use of firearms as they see fit, much like they now do with, say, abortion. The intention was always that Texas and Idaho might have vastly more permissive firearms legislation than California and New Jersey.
SCOTUS recognizes that the equilibrium where the public and elected representatives and elected governments in many of the richest and most populous (blue) states are prevented from legislating their own domestic in-state firearms policy (which does not relate to core federal government spheres like defense, border control, foreign policy, interstate commerce or central banking) against their will is unstable and will, at some point, result in the court being packed and the US’ brief experiment in comparatively greater freedoms reverting to the current European/Canadian/Australian model, not just when it comes to gun ownership but in every other case too.
The same motivation to accommodate local political sentiment, for example, is what struck down mandatory gerrymandering of black-majority districts in some southern states that was forced upon them, and what struck down Roe.
When you boil it down, the question is over where the power is kept and how one accesses it.
Your claim is that Blue States can't be bound by the Constitution if they disagree with those restrictions, because otherwise they'll overthrow the system. If this is an accurate description, then to the extent that Reds wish to have their own access to power, the key to accessing it is to present a similar threat of disastrous consequences unless their preferred carve-outs are granted.
One notes that establishing sufficient threats probably results in less stability for the system overall, not more, but human collectives have never been all that good at math.
As has been pointed out many times before, Black-Majority districts and overturning Roe are examples of ending blue impositions on red areas. We still have never had Red constitutional impositions on Blue areas, while we've had the reverse for many decades running, and still have many active. "We'll consider gradually ramp down our abuses of your autonomy, on the understanding that you will never, ever get to abuse our autonomy in any way" is not an attractive pitch for the side that has been relentlessly abused for many decades.
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.
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.
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