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 -
Of course not, because of the partisan selectivity. But that isn't really the case for mail-in ballots etc. They're mostly Democrat in many places, sure, but conversely that must mean in-person voters tilt Republican. In which case, by your estimation polling by in-person booths is unfair too because it leans towards one set of people.
The existing laws provide a set of standards thtat we've chosen, that ensures that some mostly-Democrat and some mostly-Republican groups both vote. Arbitrarily changing the rules lets you manipulate the result fo the election.
In-person booths is not manipulation of the election because the rules for in-person booths were part of the existing process that was decided in the agreed upon manner. Suddenly adding new rules for mail-in ballots is outside of that process.
Well all rules that change have to be changed at some determined point in time. And expanding mail-in voting is hardly any more arbitrary than keeping it restricted. For a long time the secret ballot was not a feature of British elections. Does that mean some MP who lost his seat because of the introduction of the secret ballot could complain about the 'arbitrary' changes made to the voting procedure? Under your argument the electoral system now has to stay the same literally forever.
More options
Context Copy link
By this reasoning, new voter ID laws would be just as illegitimate, since these also change the rules. Is that a conclusion you're comfortable with?
This is of course even more true if the voter ID laws are deliberately written so as to include forms of ID that Republicans are likely to have (such as gun licenses) and exclude forms of ID that Democrats are likely to have (such as student ID).
No, because it depends on the question of "what process was used to add the new voting ID rules".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link