site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26228 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can you imagine a US Constitutional amendment that, if proposed, would actually get passed these days?

The relevant part of the US Constitution is:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So, either 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, or 2/3 of the states must propose it, and then 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions in those states must support it, for it to become part of the Constitution... as I understand it at least.

What sort of possible amendments could you imagine would actually pass and become part of the US Constitution in today's political climate, if they were proposed?

I find this to be an interesting question because it is a barometer of what the various factions of US politics actually agree on, despite their various differences, and also a barometer of how much polarization there is in today's US political situation.

If gay marriage was seriously threatened/thrown out by SCOTUS I could see an amendment passing to ensure certain states don’t try and ban it.

You think there are 38 state legislatures that would pass it?

Absolutely, Biden won 25 states. To get to 38 you add in IN OH MO KS IA NE TX FL NV NC TN KY AK and those are just the easiest ones. I honestly think it would pass easily. Is there serious opposition to gay marriage left in America?

I’m with the others.

I can’t imagine someone here in Texas campaigning on the subject. There’s a bunch of people who wouldn’t care, a bunch of religious objectors, and a bunch who’d get an “ew” response and find an excuse not to show support.

What there aren’t are fervent supporters. Obergefell holds, Lawrence was decided 20 years ago, and it’s hard to find a gay Texan being photogenically oppressed.

Worse, gay marriage is very Democrat coded. That means it’s synonymous with COVID shots, spurious prosecutions, and Hillary fucking Clinton. I wish I was exaggerating.

Now, Texas does have a deep red identity. But I’d be willing to bet most of those other states have similar scenarios. The religious objections to gay marriage don’t see much play. That doesn’t mean opponents have found reasons to offer support.

I can’t speak to the others, but Texas has no mechanism for supporting a gay marriage amendment unless the Republican Party wills it, and the Republican Party definitely doesn’t.

I don’t even see all of those states passing such an amendment. They might not ban same sex marriage again (though I could see it from one or two of them), but they’re definitely not all passing a bill in favor of SSM.

Which of those states do you think wouldn’t pass it? Gay marriage has over 70% support nationally and it seems to me there is no organized opposition to it. This is all a hypothetical exercise but I think it would pass fairly easily.

Gender equality before the law must have even higher support, and the Equal Rights Amendment has failed to be ratified for 100 years now because plenty of state legislators know that the signal something sends to their base can be very different from the plain text of a law.

Or because they understood it would lead to a host of things people don’t really want even if at a basic level they say “equality before the law.”

In Indiana, marriage is still on the books defined as between an man and a woman and does not recognize same sex marriages from other states, it's just currently superceded by Obergefell.

I think KS, IN, NE, TX, AK, and KY are extremely unlikely to pass any such amendment. And I don't think the states Biden won are guaranteed, either. I think instead you're mistake the opinion of the court with the opinion of the country.

Nationally support is over 70% for gay marriage. Obviously differs by state but the opinion of the country is clearly on the side of allowing gay marriage.

Who cares? We're not talking nationally, we're talking about 38 separate states. I don't care that there are millions of Californians who are in favor of gay marriage, I care whether the Wyoming state legislature would approve an amendment to the constitution.

That opinion, by the way, is completely downstream of the opinion of the court, wrongly decided.

There's a difference between supporting gay marriage and supporting a Constitutional amendment to explicitly allow it, though. There are a lot of meta-concerns in the latter around the Constitution that don't exist in the former. I'm not sure I'd bet a lot against such an amendment passing, even if there were some serious threat against gay marriage in some states, but I'd almost certainly bet against it.

Indiana’s questionable. SSM was forced on the state by court order shortly before Obergefell, it has no legal protections for LGBT people seeking housing or accommodations, and it has Republican supermajorities in both houses. Missouri’s similar, as it also lacks LGBT protections and has Republican supermajorities. Kansas and Nebraska would probably be more likely to vote for it, but they have some of the same factors.

Texas would shock me, given how much its Republican governor and legislature have been leaning into the culture war. I think Tennessee and Arkansas would also very likely refuse to hold a vote, since, according to this site, barely over half the population of each state supports SSM, and I’m guessing support is substantially lower among the Republican base. Heck, I could see both states outright banning SSM if given the opportunity. Kentucky has a bit more public support for SSM, but I could easily its legislature sitting on the issue as well.

One important thing to consider is that no state would even need to hold a vote on the issue. If the legislature just doesn’t discuss it, nothing happens. And in that case, no Republicans would need to worry about getting primaried for voting in favor of a constitutional amendment, and few if any legislators would be electorally punished for their lack of action. Inaction is the easiest path for any legislator or legislature to take.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats