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 -
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.
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?
DOMA did not prevent blue states from recognizing gay marriage. It prevented the Federal government from recognizing gay marriage. With respect to states it just allowed states not to recognize gay marriage. If a state wanted to recognize gay marriage anyway, it could.
I pointed out how that is an imposition here. The federal government explicitly defined marriage has heterosexual, it did not ban gay marriage de facto but it prohibited them from being federally recognized making it an explicitly second-class marriage. They are denying full federal legal effect to marriages that the state has validly officiated.
Denying Federal anything (unless "anything" means inaction towards the state) is not an imposition on the states.
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