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 -
Sorry that they struggle to read in the California Law Review. (They try extra hard to read like morons.)
But try. Try in your own words to explain how "equal protection of the laws" means "no possible categorization in laws" means "no laws". It doesn't. It's not there. Clearly, the context, in Barrett's words, is that there are laws. So, given that there are laws, and you're trying to read this sentence about laws literally, please proceed to explain exactly how your literal reading implies that there are no valid laws. What "protection" would these not valid laws be providing?
I think the quote from the law review article makes that clear.
I'm apparently really dumb. Can you help me out? Can you point me to the specific words in the quote from the law review article where they say how "equal protection of the laws" means "no possible categorization in laws" means "no laws"? Can you point me to the specific words in the quote from the law review article where they describe what "protection" hypothetical not valid laws would be providing?
Are you aware that the article is criticizing the literal interpretation? Not endorsing it?
Yes. In order to criticize something, we need to know what that something is. To be perfectly clear, I'm saying that your (and that article's) presentation of the "literal interpretation" is an absurd strawman that cannot possibly be sustained by even just looking at the text. 'Round these parts, we don't really give much weight to random articles criticizing strawmen. The routine is to ignore them, because of course it's easy to beat up strawmen. I'm not even asking you to go so far as to steelman the literal interpretation; I'm just asking you to even state what you think the literal interpretation is in your own words. I think you're avoiding it, because you can't bring yourself to say the words out of your own mouth that are the absurd strawman; you're better than that and it would hurt your sense of personal standards to do it. So, you're trying to offload the dirty work to some random absurd partisan with a pretty bald appeal to authority.
Dude, I already said that the literal interpretation is that laws must treat everyone the same. That is the dictionary definition of "equal": "the same." But, as I said, all laws treat some people differently than others. Therefore, taken literally, "equal protection" means "no laws."
Again, the point is that NO ONE INTEPRETS THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION LITERALLY. "Congress shall make no law" does not mean "no law." "Speech" does not mean just speech. Etc, etc. Originalists, for example, look at what the words were publicly understood to mean at the time.
This part is ipse dixit, and one that strains reality.
Ok, "the same what"? Where is the part where it says "the laws must treat everyone
the sameequal"? Where are those words? What "protection" would these not valid laws be providing? You can't just take one single word, "equal", ignore all the rest of the words, and then make up an idea that its literal meaning is that there cannot possibly be any distinctions in any way. That's just not there. You're divining it out of magic (and one word). You're ignoring even the very next word! No remotely rational person would accept your reading as the "literal" one.You are arguing that "equal protection" does not mean there can't be any distinctions in any way, which I and everyone else agrees with.
Why don't you tell me what you and other remotely rational people think the literal meaning is.
Congrats! You agree with the literal meaning of the words! You had claimed that the literal meaning of the words was something else, but you haven't even tried to explain what that is and why that is even a plausible literal meaning. You haven't even tried, because you can't, because by far, the best literal reading of the words is exactly what you just agreed to.
I mean, you could try. You could just show me where, in the literal words, it says "the laws must treat everyone
the sameequal". You could just show me, in the literal words, what "protection" these not valid laws would be providing. You could at least try to explain some other meaning that you think is the "literal" one... but you haven't, because your original claim was completely moronic. No plausible literal reading of the words simply takes "equal" to stand completely on its own, completely excised from every other word, and magically interprets it all the way to, "Law cannot make any distinctions whatsoever."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