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 -
I still don't understand how "a Montana voter living in the UK" isn't a scandalous notion in the first place. Why do UK residents need to vote in Montana? You don't live there! It's not your place of residence! I can see exceptions for American military and other foreign service roles, but if you're just an American that voluntarily elected to live in London, I find it baffling that anyone thinks you should be voting for the mayor of Missoula.
Where would you draw the line then?
If he lives in Missoula for 3.5 years and then takes a 6 month contracting gig in London, should his vote be dependent on the timing of that 6 months (e.g. he gets to vote unless it overlaps an election)?
Outside of situations where people in the military or foreign service are obligated to be elsewhere, I'm basically just against absentee balloting altogether. If someone isn't home on election day, oh well, they don't vote. My preferred policy is for everyone to just go to the polls on election day... or don't.
I am aware that's unpopular though. I do think this specific example is illustrative of how far we've gone in the opposite direction, being so insistent on universalizing suffrage and getting ballots out to people that just shouldn't be voting at all that it's just downright silly.
I appreciate the candor, it also occurs to me that this is probably quite against what I assume is your political preference. I’ve no doubt that you hold this sincerely though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In crude base reality I live in a solidly blue state. But in spirit I feel I truly inhabit Pennsylvania or whichever state affords me greatest likely impact on the election.
More options
Context Copy link
Because they're not British citizens and can not vote in British elections.
Why do they need to be allowed to vote at all?
That's how citizenship works. Presumably the Montana voter living in UK is still an American citizen, and one of the main perks of such citizenship is being able to vote in American elections.
More options
Context Copy link
Because they're still paying taxes to the US? No taxation without representation etc.
More options
Context Copy link
Why does anyone?
I mean the idea of democracy is that the people have input on matters that will affect their lives. Someone living in the UK is affected only in the most tangential way by political goings-on in the United States. Why, then, should such a person need to weigh in on those matters?
A British citizen living in the US is substantially affected by political goings-on in the United States. Should [if RAND < 0.5 print "he" else print "she"] be entitled to vote in US elections?
(This isn't entirely intended as a 'gotcha' question, by the way. I can see the argument that people should vote where they live currently; I reject the notion that there are certain kinds of people who don't deserve any voice anywhere.)
More options
Context Copy link
US Citizens are taxed on global income by the IRS even if they don't reside in the US. This kind of fiscal obligation should earn them a vote even if they're living overseas.
More options
Context Copy link
"Votes are to men with swords as banknotes are to gold."
Ah, but there it is.
The idea of democracy is that those capable of mounting armed resistance to a policy can trade their swords in for votes and simulate battles without having to lose a lot of manpower to internal conflicts.
Modern US democracy is radically different from anything envisioned by the men who built the system. In fact I'd say that the actual purpose of modern democratic systems is to keep the populace feeling enfranchised even as policy-making power is increasingly taken away from them.
The idea that the majority of adults should have a hand in governance strikes me as absurd. They are clearly unsuited for it, and the results have been and continue to be disastrous.
Should the people be able to make their voices heard? Absolutely, and even monarchies had many mechanisms by which that could happen. But this? What we have now? It doesn't make sense no matter how one looks at it.
Anyway the collapse of both ends of Lord Salisbury's quote at the top is sort of delicious. But I think it makes its point even better, now, from the correct perspective.
I think one adult, one vote is a Schelling point we should not break away from without any need.
It is true that most US citizens would not be effective in a civil war. But even among the people who would be able to fight, most are not willing to fight a war over the issues of US politics. Dobbs or Obamacare or Immigration might infuriate people, but not to the point where they would be willing to murder their neighbors or die in some trench over it.
If we give the special forces rifleman the franchise even though it it unlikely that he would decide to support a side in a civil war, should we not also give the arts student the franchise given that it is unlikely, but possible that she would become an excellent drone pilot?
Ruthlessness is helpful in winning military conflicts, so you should award extra votes for the psychopaths who would be willing to nuke NYC over Dobbs.
The price to pay for having voting power proportional to military might is that you have civil wars sometimes, whenever both sides feel that they are stronger than the other one. Expect elites to form their own loyal armies in preparation. We know the end result of that, it is called feudalism. Of course, while medieval societies could survive the odd civil war over some election dispute or succession, industrialized warfare is much worse.
The present system is a much more civilized alternative. Violent gangs and jihadists don't get an over-sized share of the votes. Instead of spending billions in nuclear weapons programs and stealth bombers, elites can just spend their money on TV ads to influence the outcome of the election. Given how bad nuclear war would be, even the psychopaths are better of that way.
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
I agree with you, but just to make the case: could the person living in the UK be drafted into the US military in a war?
Checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System it looks like all US male citizens from 18 - 26 are required to register for selective service, as well as resident non-citizens including: immigrants (illegal or otherwise), refugees and asylum seekers. Non-citizens exempt from registration are international students on visas, visitors (lived in the US less than a year) and diplomats. Though if an international student visa lapses they are required to register.
Perhaps I have read too much Heinlein, but that non-citizens clause feels utterly bizarre. An alien might be forced to commit treason against his country if he is drafted by the US. As an intuition pump, consider an American civilian working in Moscow. If Putin decided to send him to fight Ukraine, I am very sure that the US government would consider that some kinds of rights violation.
I vaguely recall a scene from a civil war movie where an immigrant on a pier in NY was first given a certificate of citizenship and then a draft order, which is IMHO the proper way to do it.
I assume non-citizens would hypothetically serve non-combat roles, if there was a need for draft probably would need a lot of ditch diggers.
More options
Context Copy link
I believe you’re thinking of Gangs of New York.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Semi related...
They were sending Covid checks to U.S. citizens who live in other countries and haven't paid taxes or lived in the U.S. in decades. Source: I know one.
Those US citizens living abroad must file US tax returns though and may have to pay US taxes on their UK income (if it's high).
The US and Eritrea are the only countries that tax their citizens overseas so it's only right the US should pay them covid checks too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not the Montana guy, but democracy is funny like that.
Not only do I, as a dual citizen, vote in an election in a country I've never lived in. In fact, I even vote for a member of parliament that specifically represents my interests living in the US.
It would be like having a Congressman for every American who lives in Europe, and another Congressman for every American who lives in Asia, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link