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 -
The other Whitehouse has submitted a new bill on point #2. There's some morbidly humorous bits about the unintentional incentives -- the newest nine justices get to handle most cases, while the President gets to appoint a new one every couple years, which is funny until you've made a 'senior' justice's ability to rule on a case dependent on a Biden 2025 appointee not having a stroke -- but for the most part it's fucking with statutory jurisdiction as a workaround to shove the older appointees out. Meanwhile, cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, the whole team is supposed to get together.
So you get the worst combinations of court-packing and constitutional law problems.
Hah, thanks for posting. That's an interesting way to go about it. What would be the best way to start with term limits if you're prevented from removing the current lifetime appointees? I think the new appointees should probably be subservient to the OG justices, or even irrelevant, until they the OG's are dead.
Start building an alternative court that handles... something until OG court is down to 5 or so then combine them?
If you just put the nine current seats up every two years based on seniority, it would go Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB, KBJ. I might have the two Dubya and two Obama appointees out of order, but it's definitely RRRDDRRRD. So assuming we start in 2026 and no one dies in between, if Kamala wins you'd get a D majority starting in 2028, and if she won two terms you'd have a 6-3 D majority. The next flip after that would require three R terms in a row. So... Unlikely. You'd have to shuffle them up to start somehow.
Approximately zero percent chance we'd start in 2026, though. Even popular amendments usually take longer to run through all the state legislatures, I think. Still good research. Might work out if Roberts/Alito/Thomas decided to retire or something, which I view as at least somewhat possible (in a longer timespan for ratification, maybe 4 years?)Edit: I stand corrected. Looks like most take about a year, and some take up to 3?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link