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 -
Surprised no one’s posted this yet: https://apnews.com/article/texas-border-water-barriers-doj-immigration-83bcb38e7f5ab613117634d0c439d6b6?taid=64bee0cde6315400010b8821&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter
The justice department has filed a lawsuit against Texas for installing a system of buoy barriers in the rio grande after Mexico demanded the federal government make Texas remove them, and Greg Abbott published a response to the justice department’s demand telling them to pound sand. This comes on the heels of a news cycle about Texas border security repelling migrants into the Rio grande and using razor wire, which in turn seems to have happened once the mass bussing of migrants to places outside of Texas became old news.
Politically, Abbott is strongly incentivized to refuse to comply, even if it’s illegal, and it’s worth noting that he’s literally a constitutional lawyer and knows that he’s not going to win the lawsuit. So the most likely outcome is this getting dragged out in courts until federal agents remove the barriers themselves.
The other major culture war angle here is that the state’s defense is a previous declaration of invasion giving them the right to secure their own border, even in contravention of federal policy. This argument does not seem likely to hold up in court; it’s based on far-right legal theorizing that gained traction for political reasons. As Abbott is a thoroughly establishment creature it’s an interesting development in itself and likely portends that the Texas center-right(which, despite what the media will tell you, is solidly in control of the Texas state government) will choose to build a coalition with the far right rather than the moderate left in the future, and it probably has broader implications/lessons for far-right movements in wealthy first world countries seeking political influence.
Rio Grande isn't 'navigable' there. It stopped being maintained as a navigable river a century ago.
"Navigable", in the legal sense, can be anything as small as a kayak or johnboat.
ETA: The legal definition of navigable waters: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-33/chapter-II/part-329
There was the SCOTUS ruling earlier this year that touched on navigable waters since the whole EPA wetlands authority (clean water act) comes from wetlands being derivatively defined as navigable waters of the United States if they connect (by connecting to by connecting to...) or are near (for some definition of near) to a more traditionally navigable water.
There is a difference between the Waters Of The United States and the navigable waters. The navigable ones are the ones that can be used for interstate commerce, and the ones connected are the WOTUS. "a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters);"
The court did not claim that wetlands were navigable, just that the clean water act applied to them.
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