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 -
In the wake of the House of Representatives passing a Continuing Resolution maintaining current funding levels a group of Republicans, led by Matt Gaetz (R-FL), have filed a motion to vacate against Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). This is a motion that, if passed, would remove McCarthy as Chair of the House of Representatives after only nine months on the job. The reporting I'm seeing on Twitter says Democrats are united in supporting the motion, which means only three Republicans would need to join Gaetz for the motion to pass. I believe this would also be the first time in US history the House will have removed a Speaker with a motion to vacate.
What happens after that is anyone's guess. In a literal sense we move back to where we were this January and do another election for Speaker. Presumably Democrats are going to nominate and vote for Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) as they did then. It's not clear who on the Republican side would be a replacement for McCarthy. He still enjoys the support of a strong majority of Republicans, but the Republican majority is so small he needs basically everyone. His getting elected Speaker again would almost certainly need someone who voted to vacate to vote for him to Speaker. I'm skeptical there are promises McCarthy could make to the Republicans voting to oust him that could convince them to support him again. On the other hand I'm not aware of any consensus about who Republicans could be convinced to support except McCarthy. By far the funniest outcome, I think, would be the Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy abstaining in the Speaker vote, letting the Democrats elect Jeffries Speaker.
Vote on the motion is supposed to be held this morning though the House is currently debating other bills. You can watch the House Session on C-SPAN. Will update this post as the news develops.
ETA:
By a vote of 216-210-0 Kevin McCarthy becomes the first Speaker of the United States House of Representatives removed by a motion to vacate.
Vote breakdown by party (based on the vote on the motion to table, C-SPAN roll call doesn't break down by party):
As expected McCarthy retains the support of the vast majority of his own Conference. I think the rule is the House can't do business without a Speaker so I imagine we go directly into elections for Speaker of the House now. Given the multiple days it took to elect McCarthy before I am not confident about any particular path forward from here.
ETA2:
Am hearing online that the Speaker pro tempore (selected by McCarthy when he became Speaker) may be able to function as Speaker indefinitely. They may not have to have an election for Speaker on any particular time table.
I was looking it up and I guess this is only the third time a motion to vacate ever happened in history. The last time was kind of similar to this, the right flank, led by Mark Meadows, rebelling against John Boehner in 2015. It was unsuccessful but he ended up resigning anyway.
The first time was in 1910 and the Speaker filed a Motion to Vacate against himself. Basically he was daring unruly representatives to challenge him publicly, and ultimately they fell in line. Couldn't be farther from our present situation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same
It should be noted this was long after PP funds were banned from being used for abortions, so moderate Republicans got smeared with trying to cut funding from all the other services PP provided to some several million low-income women. And then as now, Democrats had the Senate so there was a limit to how conservative any viable budget could be.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t those other services mostly things that cultural conservatives don’t have any problem defunding even if it’s still legal to spend government money on them? I was under the impression that PP wildly exaggerated the services it provided and that the remaining ones are either objectionable to cultural conservatives in themselves(sex Ed and some gay stuff and contraceptives) or basically just referrals.
I thought the big one was cancer screening—pap smears and mammograms. Not sure what fraction of money goes to those.
Cancer screening doesn't generally have the advertised benefits when we look at all-cause mortality rather than cancer-specific mortality. Here's a fairly recent review of evidence on mammograms specifically. At this point, I'm against government funding of mammograms until someone can demonstrate that it actually improves health outcomes.
Hydro asked if it was mostly "gay stuff and contraceptives," and the answer is no.
I understand that you're in favor of general slashes to most forms of government aid. But I doubt that the opposition to Planned Parenthood stems from principled minarchism.
The linked report is interesting, though. It's a plausible thesis, and the provided meta-analyses don't suggest much of an effect from mammography.
#1 concludes with a 10% overdiagnosis in women 55-69. #2 says 30% in women age 40-49 and 20% in women age 50-59. They're certainly suggestive of a correlation with age. Let's use the conservative figure. For every 7 women who needed the diagnosis, then, 3 didn't. That...doesn't feel terribly wrong to me? And I'd certainly feel comfortable with a 9-to-1 rate.
Anyway, back to the main thrust: all-cause mortality. Much like the trend lines, the author oscillates between emphasizing the lack of statistical significance and the weirdness of seeing a trend line at all. How could the interventions actively kill people sooner? Is there a confounder, where the people who actually get screenings are the ones who are a little unhealthier to start?
So...interesting results. Probably a good reason not to screen under 50 or 55. This is a little more strict than what various governments already suggest.
Though I would hesitate to use this as evidence against cancer screening in general. The paper cites colorectal and cervical cancer as examples where the outcomes really are much better with earlier detection!
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