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 -
It's a read, although I'll admit I did some puckering when he linked to a Cam Edwards piece as if it were a hit piece, and then everything Edwards said was accurate. And while Siegel has some willingness to at least talk the talk, neither Siegel's efforts in the 97Percent group or his and Campbell's actions here did anything productive or any serious compromise rather than just getting half the cake now.
It's telling that Campbell's piece highlights constitutional carry as one of the biggest three options, and it's pointedly not in the final policy document. And that problem's built-in. Campbell himself notes that his opponents on the panel were the epitome of the saying about it being impossible to convinced someone against what their job requires.
Maybe. I'm still not convinced they're getting a real signal, rather than assuming the effectiveness of the tool.
I think it's a lot worse than that. It's not clear how any of this policy paper actually goes that way. We've seen what Purple and even Red State-implemented GVROs look like, and gunnies with a lot more function still weren't able to get serious due process there. The reductions to NICS, to marijuana prohibitions, or to nonviolent felonies all require changes to federal law that aren't happening unless the courts intervene (and maybe not even then, cfe Range) or the Trump admin starts rubberstamping the rights restoration process (and then only so long as the Trump admin is there). At the same time, the increases are free and readily available at the state level for gun control proponents. Red States can already (and often have already) pulled their NFA restrictions; Purple States won't. Optimistically the in-school gun safety stuff could be helpful, at least in theory? But we already know how that ends: the Biden administration abused the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to kill voluntary school gun leagues; the proposed policy lacks both a counter or even any consideration of the likely efforts by school administration to turn these into gun control brainwashing sessions.
More options
Context Copy link