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 -
Today, as I wait in an enormous line for an off-year election, I figured it was as good a time as any to go through our ballot propositions. There’s a lot of boring stuff on there about bond issuance. But what feels more exotic are the constitutional amendments.
That’s right! We can reenact the California proposition experience right here in our own state. Join me on an adventure through Texas state politics.
Should we enshrine the right to various outdoors industries—fishing, timber, etc.—in the constitution? Why? Apparently, city growth has led to risk of over regulation. But this is already covered by statute. Putting it in the constitution is one of those overreaches that Scott makes fun of. Frustratingly, none of the comments I found online cared about bloat, instead choosing to fuss about factory farms. I expect it’ll pass, but I’m voting No.
Should we allow local governments to issue property tax exemptions for child care? This is supposed to be an anti-inflation measure, subsidizing one particular good. Seems like a roundabout way to do it.
Should we ban wealth and net worth taxes? Texas doesn’t have one, and it remains, as far as I know, wildly unpopular. Sounds like political hay to me. This time, opponents remembered that unnecessary amendments might be a bad thing.
Should we expand a tax exemption and also boostpubliceducationfunding? Burying the lede, are we? Actually, there’s a complicated relationship between this tax and the public school system. I get the impression of many precariously balanced plates…Regardless, supporters are pretty open about wanting property tax relief. Maybe I’m just biased as a non-home-owner, but it feels like treating a symptom rather than a disease.
Should we modify the state research fund? Supposedly this is about spreading the wealth to schools that aren’t UT or A&M. I guess I’m fine with that. Except, wait, it also ties that fund to revenue from the state rainy day fund? Is that really how we want to use that money? Is the constitution the way to do it?
Should we create a fund to manage water projects? This hasn’t been a problem up here in DFW, but maybe has caused trouble elsewhere in the state. Opponents correctly note that we already have a water department. Just fund that instead.
Should we authorize funding to modernize the electric grid? My first instinct is “please, God, yes, this should have happened years ago.” Which leads me to believe that something is horribly wrong with it. But no, it does what it says on the tin, authorizing investment in backup capacity and infrastructure. Maybe this is a place for free-market solutions…but those really dropped the ball in the last few years. Infrastructure is the central example for public goods. So let’s go for it.
Should we finance high speed broadband? In theory, I guess this is another form of infrastructure. But proponents keep dropping phrases like “digital divide” that make me wonder if it’s what the kids call FOMO. If we’re only funding it this way because some senator heard the phrase, maybe it shouldn’t go in the constitution. Still, the opposition consists of people worried it will detract from federal funding for broadband. That’s pretty weak as far as complaints go.
Should we boost teacher pensions? This is literally helicopter money, but for old people. It’ll probably pass. I ask myself how many yes voters feel the same way about federal social security.
Should we add some medical and biomedical tax exemptions? This sounds boring, but really centers around a broader effort to “regionalize manufacturing.” Texas likes to think it’s an island. In this case, we’re not really unique in trying to lure investment, so…okay, I guess.
Should we let the state let certain El Paso conservation districts let El Paso county issue bonds? I feel like I’m losing my grip on reality just reading this sentence. I don’t understand how this is a state issue.
Should we abolish the Galveston County treasurer? Screw that guy, I guess.
Should we raise the retirement age for judges? Something tells me there’s a particular guy behind this one. I don’t know who, but I don’t like it. Personally, I think 75 is already too high.
Should we create a Centennial Parks Conservation Fund? This is the one I didn’t have time to read before making it to the front of the line, much to my chagrin. Thus…No comment.
Edit: Apparently everything passed except for raising the judge retirement age. Sorry, Hon. Nathan Hecht. You’ll have to maintain your grip on our reproductive organs from the shadows.
In all seriousness, he seems like a competent judge, and I don’t actually have a personal distaste for him. When I saw the text of the amendment, I immediately thought “this must benefit one guy in particular,” and voted against making exceptions. I wonder how many other Texans had the same gut reaction.
Election night thread?
Reading accounts like this make me glad to live in a state that (1) mails everyone a ballot every election and (2) also mails everyone a voters guide a week or more in advance of any election. I get text of initiatives, statements for and against, candidate statements, all kinds of stuff delivered to my door well in advance of having to make a decision.
Election logistics aside, the actual elections were pretty boring. Bunch of state level judges (electing judges is dumb as hell) running unopposed. About half the local races also involved candidates running unopposed. The other half were against incumbents who'd been in the position a decade and would probably win in a landslide. No initiatives or ballot measures or anything interesting.
Looking outside my own state, Bolts has a massive round up of stuff to watch tonight. Big ones so far:
Andy Beshar wins re-election as governor of Kentucky.
Ohio passes Issue 1 and Issue 2. Enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution and legalizing marijuana respectively.
Dems projected to control Virginia Senate, denying Youngkin a trifecta.
Loudoun County School Board looks likely to be won by Democratic Party endorsed candidates.
I hate to beat a dead horse about this after 2020, but does vote coercion or payment worry you at all? It worries me. Having a secret ballot is one of the last bulwarks against the mob (or your spouse). It's better if mail-in ballots are rare, with individually justified (and verified) reasons.
It just seems so obvious that VBM introduces so many problems I dont know why so many people support it (eg no chain of custody, return of machine politics). Is it just because Dems think it gives them an advantage?
I think more people voting is a significant social good, and that the security concerns are overblown. If VBM was a significant threat to integrity, I would have expected the contested, chaotic 2020 elections to have turned up more fraud.
Plus, I would personally benefit if the time it took me to vote was reduced. I was in line for quite a while!
Why is more people voting good?
Voting is the safety valve of government. Most of the benefits of democracy come not from better decision making (ha!) or accountability, but from cultivating a sense of skin in the game.
Whether or not this is a real effect, I won’t speculate. The important part is that people feel like there is a normal process for their team to get power. This raises the threshold for any group to decide nope, now is the time for monsters.
I prefer the civic ritual of punching your ballot and getting the all-important “I voted” sticker, but engaging with the government by mail-in voting is better than nothing.
Given what I saw in the last US election, I'm not too keen on letting the average low-info, TV-enraged person have the process of voting greased up for them any further. It's an imperfect process, but I would afford a minimum of respect to people who at least took the time to leave their home, get in line, and sacrifice a few hours of their lives for democracy. Those who are not physically able can make a similar gesture to request their own mail-in ballots. I would say this miniscule effort demonstrates and engenders more skin in the game than automatically sending every Joe and Jane a ballot just waiting to be filled out after a CNN story on a candidate gives them a frowny. It's not evident to me why their input - lazy as it is - should be given any due by default, or further enabled. I can't think of anything positive or constructive they contribute to the process, but certainly a few negatives.
Democracy has always suffered from the dilemma of "what if the idiots vote the wrong way", but maybe we can stave off the worst of it by putting up these bare minimum of barriers? Like, I see a future where people can vote for their presidents via their X accounts or a similar platform. I'm sure that would be amazing for generating 'skin in the game', and also be utterly horrible precisely because said skin doesn't exist. You laugh at a GIF of Biden falling down AF1's steps, then punch the button for Trump without getting off your couch. I would like to stall that as long as possible.
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