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 -
Sunsetted, and effective only in red states because blue states went and outlawed all that stuff anyway.
In theory only.
NJ magazine possession ban upheld at the appeals level. Case vacated and remanded by Bruen but not overturned.
So maybe 10 years after getting "caught" transporting a gun through an anti-gun area you'll clear the felony charges hanging over your head. Unless they decide the gun was too readily available (and thus not subject to the safe transport law) because you could have lowered the rear seat to access the trunk.
If there was a real win here, I could go to a gun store tomorrow -- in my home state of New Jersey or in New York or Pennsylvania or any other -- plunk down some cash, get a gun and ammo and a holster, strap that gun to my hip, and take that gun to my office in New York City without breaking any gun laws. I cannot do most of that. I cannot buy a gun in New Jersey because there is an onerous permitting system to buy a gun; I need to disclose some information I do not know and get two unrelated adults to swear I'm moral enough to buy a gun. I cannot buy a gun in New York or Pennsylvania because interstate sales of guns are forbidden. I can buy the ammo in Pennsylvania, at least, though what good it does without a gun I don't know. If I strap a gun to my hip, that's a felony; there's ANOTHER onerous permit system in New Jersey (THREE unrelated adults now to swear I'm moral enough to carry a gun) and yet another in New York (and one in PA which I believe is less onerous). And even if I had the permit, the various restrictions on carry would make it impossible to get to my office without violating some gun law or another.
Consider what a real win looks like. Obergefell. All the gays could get married, everywhere in the country, almost immediately. Officials who resisted (and I only know of one) were punted aside like nothing.
Sunsetted because every attempt to renew or extend it went down in flames. Likewise when you say "effective only in red states" what you actually mean is "effective in 43 states out of 50", the 7 exceptions being California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. (Fun aside, a lot of cold-war era battle rifles are over 50 years old now and can be exempted as antiques )
California's magazine ban has been struck down so if New Jersey's ban was upheld as you claim we now get to see the supreme court rectify the disagreement between the circuits.
As an aside, we've been going back and forth on this and other topics for 10 years now (since summer 2012), and that whole time your schtick has always been that wokeness is all powerful, wokeness is omnipresent, the right is doomed, resistance is futile, etc... etc... Has it occurred to you that it only seems that way because you keep seeking it out? Like I get that a FAANG job in NYC is a big status boost, but you were ultimately the one who made the choice to step into the lion's den.
Those 7 states are 24% of the population
And?
And describing them as only 7 states makes it sound like fewer than it really is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Duncan v. Bonta only had cert granted this year, the appeals court decision was vacated and the case remanded back down to the appeals court who remanded it back to the district court. The case originated from the 2016 magazine ban ballot initiative with the preliminary injunction issued by the district court back in 2017. Summary judgement issued in 2019 but a week after the law was allowed to stay in effect until after appeals. In 2020 a three judge panel on appeal affirmed the district court. In 2021 the panel decision was reversed by the appeals court en banc. Now it's all the way back down to the district court as Duncan v. Becerra and while the judge seems interested in expediting things (wants defendant briefs 45 days from Sept 25th, plaintiff briefs responding 21 days after) it would not be surprising if it didn't make it back through both hoops of the appeals court and possibly SCOTUS taking another several years. It's not struck. It's still in effect until the case is actually decided and given the history, it will probably stay in effect until final judgement.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about that. Gun rights advocates often overstate their victory. Some of those 43 states may have obnoxious permitting provisions as well, just ones acceptable to the right. Replace "may-issue" with "shall issue to a person of good moral character" and you've got the same thing in Bruen-friendly language (and compatible with NJ's vouching provisions). And I note you can get gay married in Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kansas, as well as any other 7 states you can name. THAT is what victory looks like. Not a Supreme Court case which has little practical effect even in the state it was decided against.
The Third Circuit sent it back down to the District Court as a delaying action, so the whole thing gets to be done all over again, and the law stands while it does. I imagine they're hoping Thomas will die before it makes it back to SCOTUS.
I took the job before the woke takeover, and watched it happen from the inside.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link