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 -
In ordinary discourse, "arrest them for X" means "arrest them specifically for X", not "arrest them for a large category of things that includes a case where X happens".
That doesn't make any sense.
If there's a law that says "no littering and also no selling zebras past midnight" and is punished by arresting them and imprisoning them for 6 months, it is appropriate to say "people who sell zebras past midnight will be arrested". The truthfulness of that statement doesn't change just because the law also covers littering.
Likewise a law that says "no selling four legged animals past midnight" includes the substatement "no selling zebras past midnight" so that interpretation also makes no sense. If someone claimed "it's not like they're arresting you for selling zebras", the law against four legged animal sales refutes it! Yes they do arrest zebra sellers!
Either way we interpret it, as long as X is illegal it is appropriate to say X is illegal.
Arresting you for zebras when it says animals is not that big a change in category conceptually, even though "animals" contains many things other than zebras.
If the law says it is illegal for you to be alive and you were shot when selling a zebra, it would be nonsensical to describe that as "being shot for selling a zebra", even though "living people" wholly includes "people who sell zebras", because the conceptual distance is too big.
Yes, if it's illegal to sell animals then it is illegal to sell zebras and thus the statement "they will arrest you for selling zebras" is accurate, regardless if other animal sellers are also arrested.
But that's not the case here. Amadan specifically claimed
That's exactly what will happen. In Kansas if they present the legally issued license that was now invalidated for "having the wrong gender", they can be arrested and jailed for up to six months. It is literally illegal for them to use that license.
Just because there's other ways for a license to be invalid doesn't negate this, just like other animals existing doesn't negate zebra sales being illegal. The fact remains that in Kansas If a trans person uses the "wrong gender" license, they can be arrested.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link