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 -
One of the Anglo things that is commonly criticized in continental Europe is the judicial system. The complaint is usually formulated as "I wouldn't want to delegate the question of guilt to twelve randos that have no understanding of the law". My usual rebuke used to be "if the prosecutor can't explain to random person what the defendant did wrong, what good is this law he's allegedly broken?"
But recently I understood that the benefit of the jury system goes deeper. Most people (citation needed) want to be law-abiding, upstanding citizens. Let's say the laws are so complex that only a judge with a law degree can determine whether someone has broken the law or not. How then can anyone else be sure they are a law-abiding citizen? We want that IQ 85 guy in an ill-fitting rented suit to know deep inside if he's guilty or not. If the law is an overwrought monstrosity that overwhelms the jury, their reasonable doubt about the circumstances of the case is the intended outcome. Laws that govern everyone must be clear to everyone.
If the law can't be written and explained in simplified english than it shouldn't exist. Ditto for whatever congress gets up to, if the congress critters can't stand up and recite it rote from memory it doesn't get voted on.
There are areas of law which are technical and complex for good reasons - the examples I normally give are aviation safety and bank capital adequacy. "We shouldn't have bank capital adequacy regulation" is a position which is only taken seriously by the kind of nutcase who thinks we shouldn't have fractional-reserve banks. "We shouldn't have aviation safety regulation" is taken seriously by a libertarian fringe, though as far as I can see not by most pilots. (It is the general aviation orgs who lead the lobbying effort against privatising ATC in the US).
Spending bills are, of course, technical and complex because the government they fund is. (And would still be even if the government stuck to core functions - the military budget is the most complex and technical of the lot.)
No private sector CEO could recite from memory his organisation's full internal rulebook in a complex, technical, safety-critical area. Any CEO who tried would be considered dangerously irresponsible. Above a certain size of organisation, the CEO wouldn't be able to recite the budget down the the line item.
That said, laws can and should be written clearly such that a 110 IQ non-lawyer with a passing familiarity with any relevant technical content can understand them.
The right to a jury trial can be waived in the US system, which I understand is not uncommon in areas where lay jurors' understanding could make results unpredictable or unsympathetic. But it's a choice the defending party gets to make (well, there is also arbitration law, but that's separate).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link