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 the whole argument around what should and should not be banned is often overcomplicated. At it's root its about simple tradeoffs: Could you ban kitchen knives? Sure, but the costs would be immense since people actually need kitchen knives (or some other equally dangerous tool) to do productive work. Could you ban tobacco? Sure, Australia is doing it. However many people see that as overreaching since smoking in private only affects one's own health. So many countries ban smoking in public places but allow it in private. Hunting rifles are fairly analogous to kitchen knives, except not everyone needs one since not everyone hunts. But why shouldn't you ban weapons that are easily concealable, much more destructive or have some other bad property that doesn't increase their productive use?
From where I am standing (in Europe) there are two arguments for gun rights in the US. 1. You can't take away all the weapons regardless. A gun ban would just lead to all the most law-abiding people giving up their guns while every single criminal can easily have access. 2. Guns intended to kill people are used as a substitute for inadequate policing, for example in cases of long response times in rural areas. Both arguments make sense to me but neither makes me enthusiastic about living in a country with relaxed gun laws.
Many of these weapons can also be used for self defense. My ex girlfriend has a revolver at home that she actually had to use once to protect herself from sexual assault. I think if one lives in a dangerous area or is particularly vulnerable having a concealed weapon is beneficial.
Absolutely, that makes perfect sense from an individual perspective. From a top-down perspective I would say that "dangerous areas" are a symptom of inadequate policing and/or other societal problems that should be solved. Also would a less concealable weapon be less useful for self defense?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link