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 -
As an ignorance American I read that article and am confused. They don't have a Constitution, so how is anything unconstitutional?
The UK likes to say it has an "unwritten constitution". There have been calls for a formal constitution, but in practice there is a 'constitution', it's just not all collected in one document:
More options
Context Copy link
The Supreme Court of the UK is essentially a government department that rules on whether policies, laws or sentences violate primary legislation passed by parliament. The House of Commons itself can overrule or abolish the Supreme Court at any time, convict or free anyone of anything, or do anything else by simple majority because it is singularly sovereign. Technically the Commons can be limited by the Lords and the King, but the lords have been neutered for a century and the monarchy had its last vestiges of genuine influence removed by the early Victorian era.
“Constitutional” therefore is a kind of legalese thing where a law or policy gets struck down because it conflicts with previous law passed by parliament. The Constitution is, to some extent, whatever parliament in Westminster passes, plus some procedural stuff. Of course the government can just ‘make it legal’ with a majority vote, but if they don’t explicitly override or repeal the previous legislation then they need to go back and do so.
In Scotland’s case constitutional questions related to devolution involve stuff from the original 1707 acts of union, huge amounts of precedent in the following centuries and the official devolution enacted by Tony Blair. The Supreme Court ruling Scottish law as unconstitutional is essentially the government (and thus parliament) saying that the law itself violates UK law.
The thing is that the UK’s protections for free speech in the law are pretty limited, largely either longstanding precedent or just incorporating the ECHR (which has carve outs for speech rights) into law. It’s not clear, therefore, that this Scottish law is ‘unconstitutional’.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link