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 -
Okay, so why did they bother with 90% of the rest of section 8 if a broad reading of those two parts make them superfluous? Were their comments, arguments, communications with each other, etc., all just a ploy to pass the only sections which mattered?
It's true it isn't 1789 anymore and the world and its juridical walls are gone and we're left with a document which can be read to have essentially limitless power and that's essentially what it is in the modern day; however, that doesn't mean it was the founders intent. You can read the entirety of clause 1, the tax and spend clause, as being used for the other enumerated clauses and reading it this way doesn't make most of the section, the most important section in the entirety of the Constitution, superfluous. The history of formulation, ratification, and amendment weighs against your claims about the founders intent as well as the repeatedly stated primary purpose of the coup against the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution to begin with which was the power to levy taxes. Indeed this is a supported general characterization of what the founders argued and responded to others when this question and criticism was brought up at the time of the founding and ratification process.
Perhaps some of them did see and want this clause to be essentially limitless, but that's not what they told others nor what they argued for its approval nor would it be anywhere close to the consensus view at the time of the founding.
the holding in Wickard v Filburn from the 1940s, over 150 years after the founding, was that if an individual's effort which is entirely intrastate with no showing whatsoever of any interstate movement of anything could be "aggregated" and therefore have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce then the federal government has the power to regulate it under the interstate commerce clause
the inverse of that holding isn't your statement, the inverse would be the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate entirely intrastate commerce even if aggregated together there is some effect on interstate commerce
the holding itself erased any limit on the commerce clause because any individual act if aggregated enough will have a substantial effect on interstate commerce; do you think a single founder would have seen this case and not been horrified?
Besides, silly FDR, he should have just passed a large tax on all wheat grown and only offered a subsidy if you abide by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Who needs the commerce clause when your tax and spend power is only limited by the apportionment clause, which after the Obamacare cases, means pretty much nothing, another relic of a bygone era.
More options
Context Copy link