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 -
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.
Yes, that's what compromise means. Both sides giving up guns. Or else both sides having guns. One side giving up guns is not compromise when the explicit goal is equitably fewer guns.
Oh, so when we make Felons a class of people who can't own guns, are we doing something unfair?
I guess my question is, why wouldn't Democrats sign a document that voluntarily waives their own Second Amendment rights if it resulted in increased levels of gun control in the country?
It's generally understood that when you do something like be a felon, you've been unfair to society and it can be unfair to you in return. (I'm pretty sure Republicans and Democrats agree that being a felon is unfair to society.) Such as imprison you (which can't legally be done to people who don't belong to the Felons class). I'm not convinced that it's so different to make felons unable to own guns.
Their understanding of "gun control" is not the maximally inconvenient and stupid definition that you've crafted here for them. It's not gun control if all the criminals have one and none of the upstanding citizens do, and it's not gun control either when all the reds are strapped and the blues aren't.
More options
Context Copy link
Insofar as "felons" means "people the democrats like, feel sorry for, and/or totemize," then yes.
More options
Context Copy link
If only it were just felons. The various red flag laws gun control advocates keep pushing don't even require a criminal conviction.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link