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 -
So, you are literally advocating that every numerical minority -- bookkeepers, etc; heck, even every individual! -- get veto power over legislation? Meaning that no law ever gets passed? I am pretty sure that that is not what the framers had had in mind.
Yes, but so are rural districts. Black and Hispanic districts are the same size as other districts, right? So, why should rural districts be an exception.
That's an odd claim for someone who is arguing that urban voters should be the political slaves of rural America. I have yet to see a principled statement of why that should be the case.
And that is the source of the problem: There is no such thing. Fighting inflation helps creditors but harms debtors. So, according to you, govt should do nothing when inflation rises. But, wait! Doing nothing is ALSO a policy choice! One which helps debtors and harms creditors. That is true of all policy issues. So, if you are starting from the premise that there are any government actions from which "everyone benefits," your argument rests on rotten foundations.
Well, in a way.
Why should it mean that? Laws do pass unanimously in the House and Senate from time to time, and if we were voting on very basic matters I think we could often generate consent--especially if we limited citizenship to people who could pass a test of reasoning. Anyway I don't believe in direct democracy but so long as you have robust property and personal rights protected by a minimal government, a single person or group's decision to not participate in this or that regulatory scheme doesn't seem worth getting worked up about.
Well, probably not all of them. But some of them do seem to have felt approximately as I do. The "Great Compromise" is, I remind you, the best evidence we have available that, whatever else they believed, the Framers did not think "one man, one vote" was going to work for the United States.
Black and Hispanic districts are created specifically to maximize Black and Hispanic impact. It's harder to do this with rural districts primarily because the sheer size of cities makes giving equal power to rural voters basically impossible under "one man, one vote."
Now you're just being pointlessly absurd. Nothing I have said implies that urban voters should be the political slaves of rural America. You're the only person here arguing that a certain minority deserves to be coerced because it is a minority. I think the Great Compromise was an interesting move. A bicameral legislature, with one house apportioned by population and one apportioned by geography, seems like a very functional resolution. It was so brilliant that many states copied the move with their own state legislatures--until the Warren court attacked.
This is bullshit. Laws against murder, rape, arson, theft, etc. are all to the benefit of everyone. Even a stable monetary system is arguably to the benefit of everyone. I see no need to pander to the last standing contrarian; people who don't want to participate in the government should be afforded maximum opportunity to do that, for example through aforementioned strong protection of individual and property rights. We live under an absolutely outrageous amount of regulation and government bloat today. None of it is necessary. Most of it is actively harmful to many while being slightly beneficial to a select few. There is nothing just about that; there is certainly nothing constitutional about it.
Unanimity is a lot easier in a group of 435 than in a group of 330 million. And, in fact there is rarely a unanimous vote in the House for anything of substance.
It isn't about reason. It is about interests.
The Great Compromise was about the distribution of power among states, not voters. Where is the evidence that the Framers were particularly worried about the power of groups of voters? And, why is the argument in Reynolds v. Sims re the irrelevance of the federal analogy, wrong? And, how relevant is the understanding of the Founders in 1787 to the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? After all, in Dobbs, the Court looked the understanding of "Due Process of Law" when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, not when the Fifth Amendment was adopted.
I am not sure why you went from "maximizing Black and Hispanic impact" to giving "equal power" to rural voters. Rural voters' power can also be maximized, and in fact that is exactly why states like PA and WI have lopsided pro-R legislatures.
Regardless, what does this have to do with whether it is OK to give some types of voters extra votes, which was the practice before one man, one vote?
That is certainly a more accurate description of the situation pre-one man, one vote than is your description of the current situation as rural voters being the slaves of urban America
No, I haven't. I have asked what is so special about a particular minority -- rural voters -- that they have a right to be given extra votes and a veto, as was the case in the past.
It is a functional resolution only if you think there is something special about geographic minorities, rather than all the other numerical minorities.
That argument means that the govt can do anything, because anything can be framed as being to the benefit of everyone. Want to cut welfare? It will incentivize work, which in the long run will strengthen the economy and thereby benefit everyone. Want to increase welfare? It will provide additional spending power to the recipients, which will strengthen the economy and thereby benefit everyone. Etc, etc.
What does that have to do with one man, one vote?
It's downstream from the objective reality that urban areas cannot exist as we know them without the rural, but the rural absolutely can exist without the urban. I get that your hobby horse is to complain about how much the urban pays to keep the rural in good shape, but you don't seem to understand the reality that the strategic position of cities is extremely perilous.
Cities exist to turn primary goods into secondary goods- both by refining them or using them directly. Cities cannot generate primary goods on its own: food, water, electricity, minerals, wood must all come from outside the city. If the rural population is hostile, that means the city people has to go into hostile territory to take them. The rural people, by contrast, depend far less on secondary goods from the city when all they're doing is subsistence farming; dropping to an early 20th century tech level would hurt them (and their ability to project power) far less than a city that all depend on the highest tech.
The security budget to permanently secure hundreds of miles of electric transmission line would be astronomical and the attackers have surprise on their side. It doesn't take much to seriously disrupt electricity supply to a city; it doesn't take much to seriously disrupt trucks and trains from delivering food and goods either.
And lest you think "but the city and the rural areas would definitely never go to war over policy, and if they did the city would crush them" recent events have proven otherwise. Note the rural victory despite 20 years of the most powerful military on Earth deploying their most advanced technology to erase them, and note that this group outlasted the second most powerful military 40 years ago too.
So I'd say that outsized rural representation in an otherwise democratic system, the occasional veto, and more generally confining the social engineering schemes to the city itself rather than the entire surrounding polity is an absolute bargain (probably still underselling rural power a bit, but I digress) when it comes to keeping the rural areas from flipping the table and reverting to the war of all against all because when it comes down to it the city will almost certainly lose if that happens.
First, thank you for actually addressing the issue.
That being said:
I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't recall making that claim ever n my life, let alone here.
This is an argument about why outsized rural representation is prudent (in the sense that giving in to extortion is often prudent), but it is not an argument about why it is just.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Calling them "extra votes and a veto, as was the case in the past" continues to beg the question, as you have done from the moment you joined this conversation. They weren't "extra" votes, it was the way the system was set up to protect certain minority interests from mob rule. If you prefer mob rule, like--I doubt I'm in any position to talk you out of that.
Most of what you're writing now suggests that you are either unwilling or unable to understand the answers I've already given you, so I should probably just leave it at that.
Yes, we should leave it at that, because, yet again, you have failed to explain why this one specific numerical minority must be protected from "mob rule" and others don't. You know, Lani Guinier made somewhat similar arguments as you, but unlike you she argued on behalf of members of her outgroup as well as members of her ingroup.
Finally, re: "if you prefer mob rule" -- isn't there some sort of rule her about dishonestly summarizing others' position? And, for the record, I am willing to bet that I am far more opposed to mob rule than you are, because I have never seen you stand up for the rights of those you disagree with, which is something I do routinely. Its a civil liberties thing, as opposed to a culture war thing.
What reason would I have to explain that? I have explicitly stated my position upthread that rural voters are not the only "numerical minority" that must be protected from mob rule. Let's have a look at just one recent example:
Where I said "I should probably leave it at that" in my previous post, I first deleted a paragraph where I laid out an argument that you are either being disingenuous, or have a serious reading comprehension issue. Then I thought--no, that's too much heat, not enough light, I'm just going to drop it.
With this comment, though, I just don't see any totally non-antagonistic way to describe your persistent and repeated mischaracterization of my view. I get that the thread is unwieldy, and you and I are both getting a lot of comments from a variety of people. So I want to be charitable about this, but like--if you're going to whine that I've "failed to explain" some position, you should probably be pretty confident that it's my actual position, and not a position I have repeatedly stated that I do not hold, right here in this thread! But no--here you are, arguing against some imaginary version of me you've concocted in your head.
Speaking of which--
If there were any plausible way to take that bet, I'd certainly do so--not least because I'd be shocked if you could personally identify the class of "people I disagree with" to even 50% accuracy. Conversely, I would not deign to comment on how often you stand up for the rights of people you disagree with, because I don't know you, and it would be idiotic to think that just because someone is (say) colossally disingenuous and reliably partisan in an online forum, that must be their whole personality.
Furthermore, probably most of us are bad at tracking good deeds, unless they are really substantial. My honest inclination is to say "I've never seen you actually demonstrate real care about civil liberties in ways that might undermine your apparent politics," but the truth is, if I had seen you do that, I probably wouldn't remember. There are too many users here for me to reliably remember each one's quirks and hangups, so I try to just approach every discussion with fresh eyes. Still, for whatever it's worth: you've never given me the impression that you are the tiniest bit interested in defending civil liberties in any broadly principled way.
But you subsequently backed off that claim. Anyhow, as we both said, it is pointless to continue discussing this point.
Yes, true, and I don't know you. But I know me, and as it happens I get paid to stand up for the rights of people I disagree with. My claim was not meant to be an attack on you, specifically, but rather a defense of me, against your claim that somehow I support mob rule. As well as an extension of my observation that very, very few people in general, and certainly very few people here, are principled civil libertarians.
True
Then you need to read more carefully. Because I have repeatedly criticized cancel culture on here. And have repeatedly argued that social media companies should be held to the same standard as govt re viewpoint and subject matter censorship.
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
Actually no, I don't think so. For an individual being able to kill people who say have a car I want, or the house I want is to my benefit or just to stop them doing something I don't like. If I am bigger and stronger or more aggressive than average, even more likely to be beneficial. Or more charismatic so as I can persuade others to kill who I want, or to join me. The strong get more individual benefit from more freedom than do the weak.
These laws make society better overall, but they are certainly not beneficial to everyone individually. Which is the point. We sacrifice things that are individually beneficial for things that have distributed benefits across society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link