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 -
There's an OBVIOUS synthesis here, and I actually consider it an useful policy point that the GOP should adopt in their platform:
We should enact a federal ban on any registered members of the Democratic Party (or any organization that is their successor in interest) from owning a gun.
Yes, this 'technically' weakens the Second Amendment.
But since it also effectively bans firearm ownership for like 30% of the U.S. population, it actually brings the Democrats closer to what they CLAIM to want. So I expect they would not object to this particular law.
And lets put it this way, if the Dems don't believe in an individual right to bear arms, they shouldn't even care to fight this law in Court. Even if we GRANT that it is facially unconstitutional, who would bring the suit on their behalf? (This is tongue-in-cheek, the very SECOND anyone gets arrested under this law, there's going to be a civil rights suit filed). In the alternative, it would be funny to have the Dems funding lawsuits to strike down a gun control law.
From a moral/ethical standpoint, I see no problems with denying a group of people a 'right' they argue doesn't exist anyway (I also apply this to freedom of speech). ESPECIALLY when they can recover the right by simply changing their party affiliation.
I'm just curious if they would balk at such a law because it has a 'disparate impact' or it 'singles out one group', even if their underlying assertion is that the interest in question doesn't actually exist. Whining that its 'unfair' would be almost an admission that the right to own a gun does have some important value!
That’s a terrible idea.
Seriously, I initially read this as a straw proposal, written so you could call your outgroup hypocrites for not eating the shit sandwich. Since you’re apparently genuine, though, I can only propose a more mild alternative.
Let’s set up zones where guns are heavily restricted. To minimize the Constitutional damage, we’ll make them inconvenient rather than outright banned. We won’t tie it to party, either, dodging 1A objections. Because the zones are limited, we get to keep our coalition; the moderates can just migrate elsewhere. We’ll try to mitigate the crime incentives with alternative policing or, when that fails, harsher state action. The federalized nature of these zones lets registered Democrats choose to live in places with fewer (legal) guns without trampling everyone else’s rights quite so badly.
What do you think?
Isn't that just how places like Chicago and NYC work now?
Precisely.
I think the OP is being a bit unreasonable by ignoring the ways in which blue tribers do, in fact, implement rules that mostly affect themselves.
Yeah sorry wasn't sure if you were going for an "exxxaccttlllyyyy" moment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought you were proposing this as some sort of not-very-clever Swiftian satire, but reading your posts below, apparently you believe this is a serious and reasonable proposal.
First, not all Democrats are anti-gun.
Second, those who are mostly don't want an absolute prohibition on firearms ownership.
But let's take your straw man at face value: all the people who want guns to be banned are banned from owning guns. Of course they would not agree to this, and the reason isn't because they "don't really believe that banning guns is just and fair." It's because their reason for wanting guns banned is that they believe guns cause violence and banning guns will reduce violence. Obviously banning only a small segment of the population (and mostly people who neither own guns nor commit violence) will not have this effect.
It's a dumb proposal even without bringing up "unfairness" (which, obviously, it would be, because also no one would accept a law like this that applies only on the basis of your registered political party).
Your proposition that somehow this will cause them to "face the consequences/realities of their own proposals" is specious.
Let's turn it around: "Republicans say they want abortion banned. Therefore, we will hereby ban abortion, but only for registered members of the Republican Party. Clearly, this will have the desired effect of reducing abortions, and it's what they say they want. Sound fair?"
You can't make any argument for why that's a stupid idea that doesn't also apply to yours.
I mean, I genuinely believe it is likely to have an impact on Gun crime since most of said crime occurs in cities that Democrats govern, anyway.
Then they can simply reject their party affiliation and maintain their rights.
Easy. They're not going to be inconvenienced in the least if they care about gun rights.
I don't care what their proposal is, I'll accept any sort of gun control policy if it applies to registered Democrats only.
Find me one THEY will accept on those terms. Call it a 'compromise' position, which is how they always describe their proposals.
...Yes? That sounds absolutely like a step in the right direction that they would accept?
Have you even tried asking the question to the pro-life brigade? That wouldn't stop them pushing for more but its surely something they'd agree to!
Like, this is the question of "Okay, we'll ban abortion, BUT, we'll require the males to be held financially accountable for their children" question. Conservatives would hit that button so fast it'd make your head spin.
So would going full Orwell. I too can imagine many modest proposals that would reduce gun crimes. Am I supposed to take your proposal seriously but not literally, or literally but not seriously?
Seriously? You actually believe Republicans would sign off on "Abortion is banned only for Republicans"?
Well, no, I haven't, because it would never occur to me to propose such a non-starter of an idea, but I welcome the input of our pro-lifers here as to whether they would regard this as something they would buy into. It sounds like taking the old pro-choice line "If you're against abortion, don't have one, simple" literally.
I suppose some people might say "Sure" with the understanding that they expect it to lead to an abortion ban for everyone. I doubt very much anyone would agree to it if they know it will only ever be applied to those who are against it in the first place.
So would your proposed "Gun ban for Democrats only" be fine with you if you know that those who agree with it are going to use it as a first step in banning guns for everyone?
More generally, "people who propose laws get those laws applied to themselves and themselves only" is just not how things work.
Sure, but that's not the same proposition at all, because both conditions would be favorable from their point of view. "Enforce a more conservative policy on men and women? Yes please!"
Anti-abortion and pro-gun control here; would happily sign on to both banning abortion and banning guns for the half of the population that wants those respective bans more (assuming broader restrictions were not already in place). It's a classic "half a loaf". Take what you can get.
More options
Context Copy link
I would take that deal. I just asked my wife, and aside from some initial "what's the point", she settled quickly on "well, it's less abortions, so sure."
That would be exactly why I would support it. It would be a significant expansion of abortion restrictions, and I believe expanding abortion restrictions is a good thing. It would also force the issue with Republicans who aren't actually on board; I could be persuaded that forcing the issue in this way would be tactically unsound, but I'm generally skeptical that compromise is really the correct avenue.
I would imagine the same logic would apply to guns.
Or a first step toward durable federalism, where we admit that Democratic rights and Republican rights can't be reconciled, and we should in fact have different legal regimes for different populations.
It's called rum millet.
What a fascinating bit of history I wasn't aware of!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The goal of abortion is reducing infanticide and increasing your demographics, which is furthered (arguably even to your benefit, if you care about your demographics and your infants) with a partial abortion ban on you.
The goal of gun control is equitable disarmament (or, maximally uncharitably, to disproportionately disarm your enemies), and partial disarmament goes directly against both.
Prolifers are well aware that banning abortion is not really increasing our demographics; factually it’s reducing our fertility advantage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're painting with too broad a brush. 20% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents own guns compared to 45% Republican and Republican-leaning. Even if a majority of people in the Democratic-coalition believe that the Second Amendment should be appealed and gun rights seriously impaired (which I'm not sure is the case - there's a big difference between "I want background checks, mandatory gun safety classes, and for convicted perpetrators of domestic abuse and other violent crimes to have their guns confiscated" and "I don't think anyone anywhere should have any guns under any circumstances") - I don't think you could defend this policy as a serious proposal, since it isn't actually the case that the group of people doesn't recognize themselves as having the right.
The point is to make someone live with the consequences of their own stated beliefs, whilst minimizing collateral harm.
If they won't accept THIS deal, then I refuse to accept any other proposal they could offer because its clear they DON'T actually believe that gun control measures would reduce crime and death, or else they'd jump at a chance to enact a partial gun ban.
If they can't get gun control passed any other way, surely those 20% of Democratic gun owners (who are an astoundingly small minority overall, so its not a big loss!) will sacrifice their rights for the greater good.
Or not, and force a reckoning.
Literally, I will accept any proposed gun control measure, background checks on down, as long as the caveat "only applies to registered Democrats" is appended to it.
Find me one they'd accept.
I've mentioned it before, but America cannot function as a nation or a people if they had to live with the consequences of their own stated beliefs. Hell, most people can't do that. The Germans managed it, and they initiated World War 2 as a result.
More options
Context Copy link
People can stay inconsistent longer than you can berate them over their hypocrisy.
More options
Context Copy link
My point is that there is no "they" you're negotiating with, though. "Democrats" do not speak with a single voice. Even if you look at majorities, that Pew survey I linked indicates that a majority of Republicans agree with preventing people with mental illnesses from owning guns, raising the minimum age to buy a fire arm to 21, and oppose allowing people to carry a concealed fire arm without a permit. Put that way, there is no party that is universally against gun rights or for gun rights.
The Democrat blob is not a monolith, and neither is the Republican blob.
If you're trying to make a point that Democrats who won't pass their preferred gun control policy (but limited to registered Democrats only as a compromise) are being hypocritical, I'm not sure the argument straightforwardly gets off the ground. First, I don't think the vast majority of gun rights advocates would be in favor of such a compromise, so you're not putting forward a live proposal that is really worthy of consideration. And second, there's reasons for wanting to oppose such a proposal apart from believing in gun rights. It's stupid to unilaterally disarm yourself, in a society where 40% of your "enemy" is legally armed.
Nobody has made this proposal seriously, so perhaps this is simply a matter of it not being considered at all yet.
Why not change that.
Wow, maybe there's certain advantages to owning guns that THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS MEANT TO PRESERVE?
I GUESS THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS GOOD FOR SOMETHING AFTER ALL.
/sarcasm
So this argument now convinced me that I should oppose ALL gun control measures.
Debate over, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree that there are advantages to owning guns, but the 2nd Amendment is about more than an "advantage" it is about a supposedly inalienable right. I would imagine that we should hold rights to higher standards than merely being "advantageous", as there are plenty of advantageous things that aren't rights. Cars are advantageous, for example, but there is no recognized right to car ownership or operation.
I'm weakly pro-gun rights, because I think that gun ownership is one of the more likely ways for minorities to protect themselves against right violations by the majority (i.e. a black man during segregation, or the Black Panthers following cop cars in the 70's), but I honestly have trouble mapping the limits of acceptable political violence within that framework. What is the dividing line between the 1954 attack on the United States capitol by Puerto Rican nationalists and the January 6th riots? What is the dividing line between trying to assassinate Hitler or Pol Pot and trying to assassinate Kamala Harris or Donald Trump? If cops are a representative of the force and will of the state, who gets to decide when cops have crossed the line into tyranny and it is thus morally justified to kill them?
Because I am pro-civilization and anti-violence, I have trouble with my tepid support of gun rights. It seems great to be able to defend against a tyrannical majority in the abstract, but how do we balance that against the fact that any state (tyrannical or not) is going to defend itself and attempt to delegitimize resistance by the oppressed? Why do we consider the Revolutionary War and the Founding Fathers good, but the Whiskey Rebellion or the Civil War bad and illegitimate?
The nationalists' fellow travelers eventually took power and pardoned them. At least, so far that's the political difference.
More options
Context Copy link
"Don't shoot at congresspersons" seems like a pretty bright line?
I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I am somewhat sympathetic to motives of the Puerto Rican nationalists of 1954, and I don't have a great argument for why they should have seen political violence as beyond the pale given their island's relationship to the United States. The ordinary means of political redress were denied to the Puerto Ricans, and violence seems reasonable enough under those circumstances, even if I prefer if Congress would not be attacked by people for the sake of stability.
While I don't think January 6 posed all that great a risk to the country given how badly executed it was, I tend to be less sympathetic to the January 6 rioters. A big part of this is because I don't think the thing they were angry about - stolen elections - were a "legitimate" complaint, if we don't engage in a motte and bailley about what we mean by a "stolen election."
However, what makes one "acceptable" and one "unacceptable"? I would prefer if there were easy and widely accepted principles for when political violence was considered acceptable, but the mainstream answer seems to "never, except in retrospect."
Like I said, for me it's the 'shooting up congress' bit that's unacceptable -- if the Puerto Ricans had held it to breaking a few windows whilst yelling and milling about in restricted areas, it would not seem like a very big deal? (either)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you live in a civilized country, you should have little trouble trusting your neighbors with weapons.
If you don't live in a civilized country, the need for weapons should be almost self-evident.
I used to lean slightly pro-gun-control, but there's simply no way you can deep dive into the statistics and come away with the idea that the guns are the problem, and by focusing on guns, it is in fact harder to address more fundamental issues.
Which is why I am losing patience with gun-control advocates who burn so much effort on a cause that simply will not achieve its purported benefits.
I mean, you can own a car and it can't be taken from you by the government without due process and such (literally the fifth amendment), whereas operating one on public property is explicitly a 'privilege.' So no, there is no explicit right, but there's still an inherent protection in there.
I mean, in my civilized country, a rando tried to assassinate the candidate of one of the two major political parties, so my trust is being strained.
My basic problem is that I can't say whether a rando trying to assasinate a political candidate is the 2nd Amendment working as intended (since it puts the power to decide when to overthrow tyrants in the hands of individuals), or if there is some principled way to criticize some acts of political violence as outside of the intended scope of gun rights?
The relevant comparison is whether it would be constitutionally possible for a Federal or State ban on cars to be enacted. I very much doubt if such a thing would ever happen, but I don't think it would be unconstitutional.
And in Japan, another civilized country, THAT HAS GUN CONTROL OUT THE WAZOO, a rando succeeded at killing an ex-prime minister. With a gun.
As I said, dive into the stats nice and deep and things become clearer.
If the problem is you DON'T trust your neighbors, that's a significantly larger issue, and evidence you don't live in a civilized (part of the) country.
And I should perhaps remind you that we can 3D print firearms at home now so you're NOT going to prevent a sufficiently dedicated rando from getting one.
The interstate commerce clause MIGHT stretch that far, but it is not in fact clear to me that a blanket car ban would pass muster unless there was some actual harm that the government was intervening to prevent. "Climate Change" might but probably doesn't cover that base.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your point is "their rules applied unfairly and against them". No one will accept that, and they'll be right.
"A rule that we believe is inherently fair and just shouldn't be applied against us, that's unfair and unjust!" Bullshit.
Why would people who want gun control rules applied to everyone object to those rules applying to them?
What's unjust about treating people PRECISELY how they propose treating others?
What makes it unfair, precisely? And why can't that unfairness be applied to gun control generally?
It applying to just them and not to everyone.
If the Democrats propose gun control for the entire country, then "treating them PRECISELY how they propose treating others" would be... gun control for the entire country. Not just for them.
It is applying to people who support gun control.
It would be unfair to apply it to those who oppose gun control, OBVIOUSLY. This is the fair outcome, where nobody gets a rule imposed on them without consent.
But as we've established, the entire country doesn't agree with it. So they can't get that. But they can get something.
Why wouldn't they accept a compromise that gets them PART of what they want? Surely they're capable of adapting their position to make such a thing 'fair'.
If they won't compromise aren't they just being unreasonable? That's what they keep saying about gun-rights advocates who refuse to compromise on gun control policies.
Because getting the policy enacted on the object level is only part of the motivation for partisan political affiliation and advocacy; there's another whole part rooted in the will to power, the desire to impose one's moral and aesthetic will over others, or just the desire to see opposing moral and aesthetic views stamped down/out.
To steal an old New Yorker cartoon - "it is not enough that dogs succeed, cats must also fail."
More options
Context Copy link
That's not how it works, unless you're willing to amend your modest proposal with "and all other laws that a party didn't vote for doesn't affect them anymore".
Where do I sign? I'd bite that bullet for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert. This is The Motte after all. I'm not going to retreat merely because my idea was pressed.
Incidentally, I'd also love a return to Federalism where the states can have more leeway over how they govern their own territories, but THAT is apparently goes too far by modern standards, which to me is an indictment of modern standards.
But no, I'm just making the point that 'compromise' requires both sides giving up something, and if the Dems want to achieve their gun-free utopia, they can start by with a compromise of imposing gun control on themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In practice this difference is small. New Jersey is nominally in the former class, but in fact getting a gun legally is difficult and various classes of people can't get them despite not being in those categories.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link