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 -
Yes, this is on purpose. It's part of the mechanism by which I would actually curtail the administrative state's power: I want the administrative state to be forced to be hostile to legislators so that legislators take the power creep of the administrative state seriously and write laws that restrict the discretion the administrative state has.
How long would it remain a crime if legislators were maximally subject to it? Legislators have the power to make it not a crime. Or to significantly limit or clarify when and to whom lying is a crime. They just never bothered making it not a crime because they know that unless they find themselves significantly out of favor with the administrative state, everyone with some discretion with regards to enforcing this is gonna ignore it or refuse to prosecute it. But if the opposite political party could, for instance, sue the FBI (or even better; make the individuals in the administrative state personally liable) for not prosecuting crimes of the their opponents, then the law would be fixed in a hurry.
Right now, legislators write laws with significant vagueness, so broad as to make everyone technically commit crimes, safe in the knowledge that the heads of the administrative state are in their peer group and would not weaponise these against them, barring extreme situations (like that one businessman-politician we all know about). And for the most part, they wouldn't even weaponise them against the majority of the population, they're content to keep these laws in their back pocket to use if they need to take someone out. But the average citizen is not in the peer group of the legislators and the heads of the administrative state, all they know is that there are dozens of crimes a hostile state could find them guilty of if it wanted to. They might not mind if the state feels friendly, but increasingly people on all sides except the elites are finding the state to be apathetic or outright hostile to them. Making legislators feel this hostility is the best way I can think of to incentivize them to restrict the power of the administrative state.
Note that I'm also thinking that a "Higher Standard" law, if it turns out to work with legislators, could also easily be applied to the upper echelons of the administrative state and the judiciary: judges, prosecutors, etc... Any one who's got any power to wield the state's power against the population and whose power is based on significant amounts of discretion. Break up the professional courtesy that they have between them that the population at large doesn't get to enjoy; the administrative state being friendly towards itself is not compatible with democratic principles, it's a form of corruption.
More options
Context Copy link