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 -
And we're back, with the final Supreme Court decisions in merits cases for this term.
First up is West Virginia v. B. P. J. in which a 6-3 court holds that state segregation of sports by biological gender violates neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Technically it's 9-0 on the Title IX question but 6-3 on the equal protection angle. This opinion also covers Little v. Hecox which was a case on the same question out of Idaho.
Next, we have National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission in which a 6-3 court rules that limits on campaign coordination with political parties is a violation of the first amendment. The FEC has other rules, the court rules, that prevent the appearance of corruption and these rules do not serve that purpose.
Finally, we have Trump v. Barbara in which a 6-3 Court (with Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett joining Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) find that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment applies to children born to parents here unlawfully or temporarily. Technically Kavanaugh concurs with the ruling because he believes Congress' codification effects this rule, rather than the 14th amendment requiring it. This is much closer than I was expecting it to be after the oral argument.
Outcome-wise I don't think any of these were too surprising. Gorsuch has a concurrence in B. P. J. where he talks about how this opinion is consistent with Bostock (where he was the author). The Barbara concurrences and dissents and opinion run to 194 pages which gives some sense for why it may have taken so long. I obviously have not read them all in full yet but I imagine they're going to be full of different takes on the same historical sources.
To add more information gleaned from scotusblog live chat:
I think perhaps Title IX could be read to require segregating sports by biological gender, but if the Court's going to take up a Title IX case I'd much rather they just strike it down.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link