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 -
Hard to say of course, but bear in mind none of the potential restrictions mooted by any mainstream figures in the U.S. would seriously damage hunting or shooting for sport in the U.S. After all we still have both of those in Britain.
So I find it doubtful that for the median gun owner it turns into a net negative, even if we see on the lower end of the bell curve that accidents and suicide are an actual risk.
In the same way that owning a pool makes it WAY more likely you or a loved one will die of drowning, and yet there are fairly easy precautions one can take to mitigate those chances (learn to swim, learn CPR, fence in the pool, provide life vests) to almost zero.
We make policy for aggregates, not individuals. Whether for some people owning a gun might be a net positive is irrelevant, society-wide they seem to do more harm than good which is the relevant point.
Can you tell me what you think shooting for sport looks like?
Because substantially all of the restrictions proposed would impact it.
Oh I appreciate that specific restrictions might make some forms of sport shooting harder or impossible, the point is that in general it could continue as a widespread activity, just in slightly altered form.
Right, so we're banning all soccer balls with a diameter under 6 feet. What? The sport can continue, just in a slightly altered form.
If there was some very compelling public health rationale for banning larger footballs I would say that yes that would be a reasonable line of argument.
Public health does not override the rights of the citizens.
This is hardly the place for a discussion of a topic so broad as the 'rights of citizens', but suffice to say that we do that all the time and always have done.
That we have done so does not justify it.
It means we were wrong to do so and should repent.
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
You also still have mass shootings in Britain even with the limited type of firearms you can legally acquire there (.22s are still plenty fatal if you put enough of them into the target; that's fundamentally what buckshot is), to say nothing of more general mass casualty events typically involving trucks. Of course, you'll never fully ban shotguns, because you have enough politicians and backers that have ludicrously-expensive H&H products to get away with that- I don't believe that this is "making policy for aggregates, not individuals".
In fact, Britain appears to be so incredibly violent that the nation takes placing a bunch of restrictions on kitchen knives seriously as well and has significant numbers of soldiers and heavily-armed paramilitary on patrol (more liberal European countries have this as well, of course). Maybe it's a good thing the gun law in that nation in particular is largely "no".
A few per decade.
All I can do is once again point you to the literature on the effectiveness of gun control measures, which you haven't engaged with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link