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 -
California has a likely new Senator, and her background is a doozy if you're someone as cynical as I am about political figures. With Diane Feinstein having died, Gavin Newsome can now select anyone he'd like, and had promised that the position would be selected from a strict affirmative action pool of black women. He apparently failed to find anyone that actually lives in California that fits the bill, so he has instead selected Maryland resident Laphonza Butler for the position. What, you might ask, are her exquisite qualifications that would make her the top candidate for such an important position? Wiki's summary suffices:
What exactly is EMILY's List?
Chalk up a win for patronage models of politics! This is someone whose entire career is built on raising money for politicians, culminating in heading a powerful PAC that is more explicitly built around money, money, money even in their very naming than any other PAC I've seen. Obviously, anyone paying attention knows that PACs are always about raising money and that's their express purpose, but I don't think I've seen one literally just make their name an acronym for the patronage enthusiasm. Big donors give money to politicians and get what they want and the organizer for acquiring that wealth is awarded with a seat in the Senate. In all, I see three things of note that are often the subtext of various choices and decisions, but I rarely see so blatantly:
The appointment will be explicitly about race and gender. If you're anything other than a Black Woman, you need not apply.
The Democrat party apparatus does not care in the slightest whether this person represents California, states are a stupid anachronism anyway.
The appointment will go to someone that has demonstrated loyalty and usefulness in assisting with the funneling of hundreds of millions of dollars to preferred sources.
On the one hand, it's all rather offensive, but on the other hand, I can think of no better Senator from California than a transient grifter that makes her living off of identity politics.
An odd argument re someone who moved to California at age 30, was a labor leader in the state, was a regent of the University of California, worked for Kamala Harris, and moved out of state 2 years ago only to pursue a job opportunity
She doesn't live in California. I have associations with states other than the state I presently reside in, including business interests and property ownership, but I would be blatantly and obviously lying if I claimed that I am a legitimate representative of those states.
Let's try it another way - do you think she would be a legitimate representative for Maryland? If so, what parameters are the relevant limiting factor for which state one can represent? In any sense that I would think of as legitimate, you would need to pre-select the state and/or locale that represent, not simply carpetbag to any state that you have a tenuous connection to when it's convenient. I'm sure I have no legal argument on the matter, as carpetbagging is a time-honored and perfectly legal tradition in many cases, but it seems pretty clear to me that you can't actually be simultaneously just as legitimate a representative of Maryland as California.
The relevant factors for which state one can represent are best determined by the voters in that state. It's a persuasive rather than a dispositive factor. It's a perfectly legit criticism to lob, but voters are perfectly free to ignore it if they feel an outsider represents their interests better than an insider for various reasons.
It's a tradition that dates prior to the revolution, wealthy Englishmen were known to buy "rotten boroughs" where there were few enough votes and they were obedient enough that enough money could buy a seat in the Commons.
I'm on the record here crucifying Dr Oz for running for the PA Senate seat, on the other hand I support(Ed) McCormick's run for the same seat. Neither currently lived in PA, McCormick grew up in PA, and his family was prominent in PA before. Oz' ties were based on his in laws and part of his education, at best. That's a judgment I made personally, at the booth.
More options
Context Copy link
So, if Jerry Brown had moved to Maryland two years ago to head Emily's List, he would be an illegitimate pick as well? Clearly, "moved to Maryland for a job two years ago" is not per se proof that you can't be a legitimate representative of California.
Correct, my position is that moving to a different state, establishing your residence there, declaring that you reside there, and registering to vote there means that you are no longer a legitimate representative of your former state. I would be open to the position that someone should instead only be eligible for their previous state since two years is obviously not long enough to become legitimate in the new residence. I reject the idea that someone can be Schrödinger's representative, equally legitimate in all places that they could register in once appointed.
Well, that seems a bit extreme, given my Jerry Brown example.
That is a strawman that you have created. No one has argued otherwise.
I am indeed the kind of extremist that reads Article I, Section 3 as applicable, even if it were the venerable Jerry Brown that had moved:
I guess you can get around that by saying that she's not being elected. That would suggest that it would be perfectly legal to select a teenager from Australia though, which doesn't strike me as likely.
Regarding Schrödinger's representative, I suppose the correct analogy isn't that they could register in any place, but merely that they are equally resident in both places as necessary until declaration. That does seem to be exactly what you're claiming, no? That Butler would be legitimate in Maryland or California and that Brown would likewise be equally legitimate in either place if he moved. As mentioned, I'm open to the suggestion that Brown could only ever be a legitimate representative of California and that two years residence in Maryland wouldn't change that one jot, but it doesn't really match up with a plain reading of the text.
Dude, that is a completely different issue than the one you raised. If Jerry Brown moved to Delaware, he might be constitutionally ineligible to serve as Senator from California, regardless of whether he is capable of representing the interests of Californians. Your claim was re the latter.
I believe those claims are entirely consistent - someone is ineligible precisely because it's fairly obvious that they're not representative of a state that isn't actually their state of residence. This was codified precisely because someone's residence does actually inform us about who they represent.
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