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 -
Texas tries to put Planned Parenthood out of business again(and might succeed this time)
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/15/texas-abortion-planned-parenthood-lawsuit/
So Texas wants to lawfare Planned Parenthood out of being able to operate. This isn't new. What is new is this part:
"A conservative who previously worked on anti-abortion cases as a religious liberty lawyer" is a technically accurate description of Matthew Kacsmaryk. It is, however, leaving out the context that was the judge who suspended FDA approval for mifepristone, had only previously worked for conservative activist groups, and also got handpicked by the plaintiffs. There is a 0.0% chance he will rule in favor of Planned Parenthood under any circumstances.
So what's the practical effect?
So basically similar to what New York tried with the NRA. It should go without saying that while I find Planned Parenthood an unsympathetic defendant, this would not be happening to a less politically charged organization and 180 times the overbilling amount is just absurd. Also the legal interpretation seems dubious and probably would've been dismissed by a less biased judge.
I do want to point out some incredible naivety:
PP is, uh, not going to get left alone in the culture wars, and that's their fault for constantly making themselves a target in every way they can come up with. It's fair to point to people who don't have access to whatever healthcare services they provide(do they actually provide mammograms? The claim seems debunked but the people who did the debunking are not fans of PP) but trying to paint Planned Parenthood as an innocent victim of broadsides unleashed for no reason, even if it's playing pretty hardball, is not totally in contact with reality. Planned Parenthood is not in any universe apolitical and their side did after all start the trend of trying to punish the opposition.
Nobody actually thinks this, not in the middle of the culture war that now encompassed law enforcement and legal system completely. It's just performative posing. There still might be a-political law hiding somewhere, deciding disputes among neighbors about a bush of raspberries, or trying to figure out who is to blame when contract about shipping gadgets is violated. But not in cases that concern high-value hyper-politicized targets. The Party of Lawyers started it - hoping to win it, because who wins in lawfare if not lawyers? - and now it is on. And I don't see how it could be turned off in any near future. I mean, if blue tribe strikes at NRA, why shouldn't the red tribe retaliate against blue tribe assets? If they don't, they'd just keep losing until their voters get fed up and elect somebody who will stop the chain of losses. How else could it go? In an environment where organizations are encouraged to become tribal (not that PP ever wanted to avoid it, but even if you want to, it'd be very hard to keep out) that's what will keep happening. And the nice ideals would get the treatment the ideals usually get in the middle of the war.
I actually think this!
Perks of being a white, white-collar, [REDACTED FOR PATHETIC OPSEC] man. I do, in fact, get to benefit from playing by the rules. People all around me do, too. We get to pay our taxes and submit our DMV paperwork and make all these daily, personal sacrifices, and in return, we get to live in a functional society. There, I said it. America isn't perfect, but it is the best in the world.
I'll even go as far as to say I see most Americans as benefiting from following the rules. Even those who loudly insist that they're being oppressed. Whatever group you think I mean by this--flip the polarity, and I mean them too.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that you can't find these people. You've blocked me. If you've built yourself a bubble where everyone is miserable and terrified and kept down by the Man...well, I think you're missing out.
If you define best by combination of 'business opportunity/ materiál riches', yes, America is best in the world. If you're a smart, canny person who wants to make a huge pile of money, you're better off in US.
If you went by say, life outcomes for the median person, developed places in Europe or East Asia are far better.
You guys have had a million die from drug overdoses in the last decade. You have crazy crime rates, life expectancy declining, people afraid to be in public.
Your fatal OD rate is 20x EU.
Etc.
We've got 330 million people. A million deaths in 10 years isn't even coming close to affecting the median.
The revealed preference, despite our terrible immigration system, is that more people want to immigrate to the US than emigrate from it, for almost any country.
Of course the median American didn't die from a drug overdose in the last decade. But if knowing a drug addict is to be affected, then I suspect the median American has indeed been affected by drug abuse.
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