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 -
Oh, we tried the will of the people thing in Germany. The legal phrase was gesundes Volksempfinden (the healthy moral sentiment of the people).
It closed all the loopholes with minimal legislative effort. Of course, it also really lowered our ranking with regard to rule of law, so we were persuaded to give it up.
A judge should apply the laws, not bent them to what he perceives as the will of the people. If the outcome of a trial depends on whether there are demonstrators outside rooting for a conviction or an acquittal, then we can safe a ton of court costs and just let the mobs with their nooses run the show instead. (The popular sentiment will certainly influence the jury, but even there -- with the contested exception of jury nullification -- the task of the jury is to reach a verdict based on the evidence, not popularity. Arguing that someone is a terrible person and should be punished no matter if he did the act he is accused of is not how things should be done.)
If the framers of the constitution had wanted the judges to just follow the way the wind is blowing from the Trump administration with regard to immigration, they could just have given the president the right to replace any and all federal judges whenever he felt like it. They did not, and I do not think that was an oversight on their part.
Do you mean that the court of public opinion could de jure influence outcomes in the court of law?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link