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 -
Well, if it helps, I am not on of those who believe in the right to own McNukes. I believe a reasonable argument could be made that at our founding we the people were generally expected to own and operate man portable rifles and pistols generally. Yes, I know warships were privately owned in the distant past, so one could make that argument and I don't have a truly principled reason to restrict them but I accept they are and don't advocate to own one.
How I believe the 2A should be looked at is what constitutes an "arm" in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Even before the US was a country, repeating rifles did exist even if in a rudimentary form so I would argue AR-15s style performance could be reasonably foreseen by our founders. Now I'd argue automatic weapons should be allowed, but I know that just isn't feasible, so you work with the world you have now - and people being allowed to own sporting rifles and pistols should be pretty uncontroversial for being covered under the 2A. The problem is many federal judges and state governments would immediately strip people of being able to own any arm if they had the chance - and we're fighting for even the basics of keeping the 2A available in many states.
When we look at other amendments for new tech, we look for analogs: the internet is just the printing press, but way better. AR-15s are just better repeating rifles. Drones are allowed to be owned, so are some explosives - so I will not be surprised if we see drone based terror attacks in the US very soon - and I'm not sure what can be done to stop it. The technology exists, isn't difficult to make, can't be easily restricted (compared to controlling Uranium and its enrichment), etc. it is only a matter of time. Some people already tried for the UFC event during flag day but got caught before they were able to do it.
The exceptions for the 1A, especially in regards to political and religious speech are darn near unlimited - and I can cause much more damage to many more people by advocating terrible forms of government (fascism, socialism) than I could as one man with a machine gun; but attenuated causes are harder for us humans to truly take the full weight of.
More options
Context Copy link