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 -
Precisely. However, the concepts involved in the analysis existed. It's like in the oral argument in the violent video games case, where the question was basically posed to Scalia (I can't remember if it was another justice or what), some version of, "Do you want to know what James Madison thought about video games?" Scalia's response: "No. I want to know what James Madison thought about violence!" We can still consider the concepts of political allegiance/implied license/etc., as they apply to illegal immigrants today, even though they didn't have illegal immigrants then.
But they did not rule concerning how those principles come into play for anyone in the situation of modern day illegal immigrants. It just wasn't a question! You're heavily over-reading. I'm reminded of this old old exchange, where someone was heavily over-reading an opinion that simply did not consider an issue front-and-center, and thus, did not take the opportunity to really address it. That opinion may have still discussed principles which could have applied, but if one wants to be extra boneheaded, they could just imagine that it's implicitly settled. The extra fun part about that one is that we already had an opinion which clarified that, no, we didn't focus on that thing before. But we can still analyse it using the principles involved now that it's front-and-center.
In no way does one have to overturn the holding of Wong Kim Ark (that is, birthright citizenship for a resident alien) to say, "The Court in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that the governing principles involve political allegiance and implied licenses, and since there was no such thing as a modern day illegal immigrant at the time, of course the Court did not find an exception for a category that they didn't even consider. But they obviously did not foreclose the question that they didn't even consider, and we'll proceed to analyze the current case using the same governing principles." From there, they'll inquire about the original meaning of 14A, including all the messiness of political allegiance/implied license, and we'll see what they come up with.
Let's clarify something directly. Do you reject the claim that the original meaning of 14A included some form of messiness about political allegiance/implied license?
More options
Context Copy link