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 -
Are you sure about this? A huge portion of the dem activist base would cream their pants at the thought of doing this, and the white house is run by that base.
The fact that this administration already pulled out a title IX rewrite that enforces an extremist doctrine no liberal would have endorsed until a few months ago should be a sign that they are not motivated by what wins votes.
The transsexual issue is the ultimate expression of pure power dragging the party by the hair behind it, down to the fleshing table in the basement.
Well, why should they be? Per the past post of mine that @magic9mushroom linked, have you considered that maybe the reason they appear to care so little about elections is because they know elections don't matter? That they'll remain in power no matter how the masses vote?
I mean, I don't see how anyone, having seen both the Trump and Biden presidencies, can believe POTUS is anything more than a figurehead position, as much in charge of the Executive branch of DC as King Charles III is in charge of the UK. Nor how they can have lived through government "shutdowns" where nothing that mattered actually shut down and trillions of dollars continued to be (unconstitutionally) spent, and still think that the House of Representative's "power of the purse" still exists.
The reason the administration enforces extremist doctrines "no liberal would have endorsed until a few months ago" is because they know they won't suffer any meaningful consequences, because they have all the power, and there's nothing and nobody that can stop them.
More options
Context Copy link
I’ll take that bet.
Also, this revision has (apparently) been in the works for more than a few months. This mess has been brewing since Bostock at least.
I would... not be so sure the administration can avoid it if Biden wanted. See the Kincaid v. Williams denial of cert (starts at page 39) from last year as an example of what's going to start coming down the pike in earnest: a very broad law with expansive reads of standing, on a matter extremely sympathetic to progressive-leaning and left-leaning judges, and where individual private actors can bring a private right of action with staggeringly high penalties, and a ton of opportunity to forum shop.
Philosophically, there's a fun question about the difference between sending in the troops and charging 150k for each violation, but there's a point where the practical difference gets pretty small, and it happens pretty quick when the target's main assets will also be the tools necessary to not comply.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If Biden wants to ensure he loses in 2024 trying to have a Little Rock movement, he can shoot his shot.
More options
Context Copy link
Paging @Capital_Room; I know you have an alternate explanation for this sort of behaviour, and SteveKirkland wasn't around back then (plus the situation has evolved somewhat), so I figure I might learn something from a discussion between you two.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link