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 -
Today I will post of the ballot measures. Similar to 2024, there were a lot. What is notable to me is that many states that ended up electing Democrat politicians also ended up voting for many initiatives that I'd consider Republican priorities, including lower taxes and voter ID. This includes four states that limited transgender athletes, transgender bathroom access, and more, those four states being Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Washington.
One of my friends in Arizona quickly said that this might be the death of transgenderism as a politically relevant issue. He thought it was likely that the issue would be dropped as an election loser, as something that the people obviously did not want since they voted against it by majority in even what you might consider quite "Blue" states. I said what could be summarized as "I doubt it", maybe along with "you'd be surprised". I think I have been vindicated in saying this, as the Colorado governor is outright saying that he's going to fight these measures that have been passed to the best of his ability, and there are already schemes to nullify those ballot measures. Anecdotally, I see transgender rights commenters saying that the Arizona propositions are illegal even if the people did vote for them.
Most of these culture war issues are not things that can be resolved by simple votes. They can only be resolved through decades-long grueling lawfare. Blues don't take 'no' for an answer, as their responses to Heller and Bruen and now this ballot measure show.
You are right, and your friend is wrong. Progressives are perfectly capable of shoving a political issue down the people's throat regardless of public opinion. California voted against gay "marriage" in 2008. It didn't matter; Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary, then the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.
Gay rights are not the best example because public opinion on gay rights really did change that fast. "Same-sex marriages should be valid" went from 40% approved to 60% approved between 2008 and 2015 if I look at the chart in https://news.gallup.com/poll/710810/support-lgbtq-issues-remains-down-peak.aspx
That's exactly why it's a good example. Public opinion changed because power overruled democracy and then cancelled dissenters. Most altered their views to match power. Why wouldn't they do the same on other issues?
I believe the entirety of the last 10 years shows that power (no matter the power) really doesn't overrule democracy. Sure, short term successes, but the bill for the overreach always come due.
Oh man, this line gets trots out all the time. It's very thin skin behavior for me. America is the most robust marketplace of ideas I know, no matter how much you think your ideas are gonna be cancelled, there will always be an audience for you. Some people will come to like your ideas because it's contrarian and edgy and not in the mainstream. If your ideas aren't accepted by other people, there could be so many other reasons just as much. Maybe the audience weren't in the right place, time, and/or mindset to receive your ideas. Maybe the way you communicated and conveyed your idea wasn't right. And sometimes maybe your idea just sucks and you're not seeing it. And if you are actually legitimately cancelled, well, uhhh at the very least I see a possible lawsuit opportunity; if it's a government, that's a constitutional violation if they didn't handle it right; and/or if it's salacious enough, you can milk it by presenting your story to the other side who I presume would be sympathetic towards you. I do believe in the cheesy stuff like "the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice" kind of shit, I get that not all legitimately cancelled will have the conviction to standup for their beliefs when the full weight of the present blocks them from seeing the future, but to say that Americans being called up and polled by a private company and feel compelled to have to lie/altered their view is just kinda out of touch.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Some Biden staffer tried to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment via tweet.
I vaguely recall this, any reading that documents it fully?
The ABA had the year before declared they believed it had passed all requirements to become part of the Constitution.
I don't think there's any logical or sustainable legal argument in support of that stance, but again since when have the progressives let that stop them from doing the policies they'd wanted to all along?
Its crazy that I "don't pay that much attention" to politics (compared to some people on twitter) and yet these little details stick in my memory.
When people say Trump is doing something 'unprecedented' I feel like 9/10 times it something that either Biden or Obama did or tried to do first.
I've been a little unpersuaded by this line of argument, since Trump's version often ends up being worse than the "precedence."
I don't like Obama's Dear Colleague letter, but Obama was trying to change policy on something non-central to a university's core function. Trump's Harvard letter was about 70% reasonable, and then the unreasonable 30% went so much further than Obama's that he managed to make Harvard look like the good guy in that whole affair, and Harvard had been flagrantly violating the law for years.
Obama's sue and settle stuff is similar. When Obama did big payments as part of it, he had Congress approve the spending. Trump set up a non-adversarial process involving himself, and then settled with the government to create a big fund to give money to whoever he wanted, and he didn't ask Congress to approve the settlement fund, which makes it much, much worse.
Like, you can't keep saying, "but I do have precedence" over and over again, while doing something 20% worse each and every time. Sure, there have been a lot of US presidents, and basically every one of them has done at least one thing that was legally questionable. You shouldn't speed run doing every single precedented rotten thing any president has ever done.
Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump
Yeah, I think you can.
More options
Context Copy link
Sue and settle did not have Congress approve the settlements. Instead, Congress set aside money so that they didn’t have to review every settlement (this predated Obama).
What Obama did was basically coordinate with non profits and then had the DOJ settle. It had the veneer of adversarial litigation (which Trump did not) but in that way it was more pernicious because it was fake.
Congress did approve large settlements under Obama.
The cases where Congress didn't under Obama were usually because the government was suing a private company, and the settlement was being paid out by the company not the government.
I’m referring to the Judgement Fund.
Also, Sue and settle wasn’t just about paying out cash but consent decrees.
Anyhow here is an article on it. https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/regulation-through-sham-litigation-the-sue-and-settle-phenomenon
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You can, actually. No one has a precedent ruler that will measure by how far you extended the original one, and even if there was one, it's not like there's a norm saying by how far a precedent can be extended, so this objection will always come off as "it's ok when we do it". You can also plainly observe it happening over and over in more mundane parts of the government - taxes, debt, regulatory burden - all these things tend to expand, usually to the nodding approval of progressives, and contractions are extremely uncommon, usually forced by a knife on the throat.
So the thing you're complaining about is completely normal in government affairs, and the very reason why it's considered bad to set a bad precedent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://x.com/POTUS46Archive/status/1880271367569895830 and its community note and responses would be a starting point. Didn't find any good articles from a search.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link