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 -
Recommending a constitutional amendment when your own personal approval rating is probably sub 30% is some balls-out "FUCK IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE" levels of confidence. Or 4th quarter hail marying.
Or...what this really is, which is a goofy signal boost to the progressive / Big-L-Liberal base. This goes nowhere and is DoA.
Term limitis with rolling appointments will just make SCOTUS much like congress in that it will gridlock. People forget that the overwhelming majority of SCOTUS cases are 9-0 or 8-1. 5-4 cases are incredibly rare and often do deal with pretty big issues. With the ability to "wait 2 years" for another judge to show up, SCOTUS would probably stop taking any borderline cases at all (remember, they get to take up a case or not. No one tells them what to put on the agenda). The practical effect is that when a circuit court (all the way from the 5th to the 9th) makes a decision ... that's pretty much it. You can hope and pray your appeal makes it to the court, but it probably won't and, if it does, it will take years and years and be delayed countless times.
Liberals love ambiguity and grey area because their preferred solution is to build in more expansive interpretations. Conservatives will default "back" to a minimally scoped or traditionally supported interpretation of a law. Leaving something unsettled allows for it to grow, metastisize, and become embedded within the system.
On point number 3, I have no idea what "enforceable" means. I guess everyone is very upset that a black Republican went to Alaska?
I'm not following the gridlock part. Wouldn't there still be an old number of justices?
Enforceable means making a weapon to take justices they don't like off the court.
I think it would be gridlock in a game theoretic sense.
"Should we take this case, which might come down to 5-4 or 6-3 with the court the way it is right now, or wait 2 years when it's a little more lopsided?"
If everyone starts to employ that thinking (both the justices on the court as well as the White House appointing them) you get into situations where the court really isn't every doing anything because they're always waiting for that next justice to be appointed again and again.
That's my theory anyway
I think they'd just take the case, if they thought they had the votes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, at this point they're just burning Biden as fuel for leftist turnout in a way that doesn't implicate kamela. I wonder if we'll get a sudden hard left shift from him on Palestine if they think there's still some meat left to gnaw there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link