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 -
Justified vent against selfish women aside, I don't think "repeal the 19th" is likely to be a helpful think to do- merely retvrning to 1900's solutions is not going to be the answer because it's not 1900 any more, so the solutions of 1900 are simply not appropriate (and the changes that were made from 1900-1940 in particular are what we're forced to deal with right now- all the money that kept us from having to face them directly is gone).
The obvious problem being that said landowners will just block all development, and in so doing block all reform. They already do this in coastal states and (ab)use the "muh environment" veto; landowners don't need any more political power. (Some ancient societies had this problem too.)
The problem you're trying to solve for is moral hazard.
I think a sufficiently-expansive definition of "taxpayer" might work, and gives the government a certain other kind of power to do big things in return for a populace that quite literally loses the right to complain. So, you could create a government initiative to bail out students under crushing loan debt at the cost of their vote for the next X years (since this would drop anyone with a net-negative job under this threshold). You'd need a lot more accounting for each citizen, though, but State capacity is large enough to do that now. You could offer public-funded healthcare with the same condition attached.
You'd also have to compensate for women with children somehow, since being a full-time SAHM naturally limits the amount of tax you can pay, and revoking the right from women who both obviously have a stake in the future/doing what they are supposed to be doing is not likely to be productive.
I also think that should include public sector workers; if your employer is the [X level of] government, you don't get a vote in [X level's] elections, simple as. They have already received their allotment of power through being employed by a highly stable government position, getting to set their own salaries and policies too is double-dipping. It might also include farmers and other workers in bailed-out industries for the same reason.
If you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, you are charged in this way for your stay. (This doesn't change much in terms of felon voting rights, but it's an easy justification for why they should disappear, and also provides an automatic mechanism for restoration rather than begging for pardons.)
(You could solve the illegal immigrant problem in a similar way too: if use of taxpayer-funded services are being offered to non-citizens, then each member of a polity suffers a penalty to its political power. Polities [and voters] clearly need to be incentivized to follow the immigration laws.)
'Joint filing'
Seriously the GOP gives helicopter money to families embracing traditional gender roles every time it has a trifecta and democrats don't repeal it, they'll get taken care of as well as retirees.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link