site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I always assume that anyone unironically quoting Schenck agrees with its conclusion that distributing anti-draft pamphlets is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Which seems like a downright fascist perspective, but what do I know?

Most of them probably have no idea about the case beyond "fire in a crowded theater" and "clear and present danger". But someone did mention the case by name, and as far as I can tell given the limitations of the Post's execrable (technically) comment section, nobody pointed out it's no longer good law since Brandenburg v. Ohio.

And I'm sure they'd agree that distributing anti-draft pamphlets about the Vietnam War or the Gulf Wars (yeah, I know, there wasn't a draft) would be fine but it's absolute treason and not protected to do so about WWII or the Ukranian War (again, I know there isn't a draft in the US).

nobody pointed out it's no longer good law since Brandenburg v. Ohio.

I mean, with the current Supreme Court, who’s to say Brandenburg v. Ohio isn’t next on the chopping block? Brandenburg is just one of a laundry list of cases from that time period which changed longstanding precedent. Those cases are being rolled back one by one as we speak.

Aside from Roe, can you name another? I believe there are two members of the Supreme Court (Thomas and Barrett) who might seriously consider overturning Brandenburg, but that's it.

Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education overturned by Janus v. AFSCME.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Not necessarily from the same era, but NYSRPA v. Bruen basically overturned every 2nd amendment case in history besides Heller

Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Wikipedia claims that; the opinion of the court claims Lemon had already been effectively set aside.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

SFFA overturned neither Bakke (which was a mess of a set of opinions, and in fact the ruling was in favor of Bakke) nor even the later Grutter which endorsed Powell's opinion in Bakke. The ruling was that Harvard and UNCs programs were impermissible under Grutter.

Not necessarily from the same era, but NYSRPA v. Bruen basically overturned every 2nd amendment case in history besides Heller

I only wish it overturned US v. Miller.

Wikipedia claims that; the opinion of the court claims Lemon had already been effectively set aside.

Yeah, by previous Roberts court opinions like American Legion v. American Humanist Association

SFFA overturned neither Bakke (which was a mess of a set of opinions, and in fact the ruling was in favor of Bakke) nor even the later Grutter which endorsed Powell's opinion in Bakke. The ruling was that Harvard and UNCs programs were impermissible under Grutter.

If your take is, "actually affirmative action has been illegal the whole time," I guess you might be right, but that's kind of missing the point.

I only wish it overturned US v. Miller.

It did. The two opinions are fundamentally irreconcilable. Nobody knows how much of the NFA is constitutional at the moment.

American Humanist also claims Lemon had already been set aside.

If your take is, "actually affirmative action has been illegal the whole time," I guess you might be right, but that's kind of missing the point.

My point is that the lower courts had effectively overruled the Supreme Court by turning a blind eye to blatant violations of the restrictions on affirmative action programs set out by Grutter, and SFFA was therefore not changing precedent by re-affirming those restrictions.

It did. The two opinions are fundamentally irreconcilable. Nobody knows how much of the NFA is constitutional at the moment.

Enough of Bruen will be carved out to allow all of the NFA to stand. Except on abortion, that's how the Roberts court works; make apparently major decisions which change nothing.

Enough of Bruen will be carved out to allow all of the NFA to stand. Except on abortion, that's how the Roberts court works; make apparently major decisions which change nothing.

Granting cert in US v Rahimi looks all downside on that front especially given the facts of the case and the plaintiff. And that's not even getting close to the NFA section of 18 USC 922.

More comments