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 -
I just gave you all the examples. I can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse in hopes of setting some rhetorical trap, or whether I have mistakenly attributed to you a substantial knowledge of the law that you don't actually possess. (For some reason I thought you were a lawyer, but now I'm thinking I must be mistaken about that. If so, my apologies!)
What reason would they have to use a veto power on anything else?
Or maybe more importantly--why are you advocating for rural voters to never have a veto over ANY legislation, even legislation that intentionally discriminates against them? Because that is clearly the result of "one man, one vote."
No, you didn't because, as I said, those are examples of something different: "To make out an equal protection violation, a party cannot merely prove disparate impact—he must "prove `the existence of purposeful discrimination' motivating the state action which caused the complained-of injury." Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing, inter alia, McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292-93 (1987)). Specifically, "[d]iscriminatory purpose in an equal protection context implies that the decisionmaker selected a particular course of action at least in part because of, and not simply in spite of, the adverse impact it would have on an identifiable group." Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 65 (5th Cir. 1992))." Allen v. Hays, (5th Circuit No. 21-20337, March 21 2023).
As I said, you are advocating for an absolute veto power, not the limited "veto power" re the narrow set of legislation that violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Are you kidding? Anything that they think does not serve their interests, or anything that they think might harm them (including anything that happens to have an adverse impact), or any culture war issue, for that matter. Or, any project that did not benefit them as much as they wanted. Or any budget that did not fund some useless pork in rural areas. Etc, etc, etc.
I'm not.
Such legislation that did not have a legitimate purpose would be subject to "veto power" under the Equal Protection Clause. If you are arguing that the standard under the EP clause should be higher -- eg, that rural residency should be a quasi-suspect or suspect classification, fine. But you are arguing for something much, much broader: For a certain group to have an absolute veto over ALL legislation.
Those things would be a form of discrimination against them, no?
No, not intentional discrimination. It certainly would not meet the standard for purposeful discrimination, as noted above: "Specifically, "[d]iscriminatory purpose in an equal protection context implies that the decisionmaker selected a particular course of action at least in part because of, and not simply in spite of, the adverse impact it would have on an identifiable group." Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 65 (5th Cir. 1992))." Allen v. Hays, (5th Circuit No. 21-20337, March 21 2023)."
Moreover, all laws affect some people differently; that doesn't make them intentional discrimination.
So "we want to ban cattle farms for ideological reasons" would not constitute discrimination against cattle farmers to you?
Either way, this is the sort of thing the geographically based houses were designed to prevent -- Reynolds was bad because it stripped States of the right to decide how their Houses should be constituted, based on an invented "right" to "one man one vote" -- which is totally baseless in terms of the design of the Union.
? Yes, a law that explicitly on its face applies to a particular group is intentional discrimination against that group. But it isn't intentional discrimination against rural residents, even though such a ban would disproportionately affect rural residents. Similarly, the current ban on growing opium poppies intentionally discriminates against opium poppy farmers, but it isn't intentional discrimination against rural residents, even though it disproportionately affects rural residents.
But, speaking of intentional discrimination, do you know what is intentional discrimination? Geographically based houses, which intentionally discriminated against urban residents. But somehow that is ok? Because the correct team is being harmed?
First you need to prove that "one man one vote" is a right in the US -- it never was, and still isn't (as evinced by the process for electing Federal Senators).
Nor is there a right to raise cattle. The point is that you are being selective in your outrage about discrimination.
Note, btw, that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to limit the states, not the federal govt, so the Senate is not particularly relevant. Plus, the Constitution says that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Just because all baleful discrimination cannot be eliminated does not mean that none can.
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" ought to cover it.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link