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 -
Exactly. I don't know that you did. Because you're a new account with no history, and nothing you've said makes me think you're being honest, based on my own unhealthily expansive experience on this topic, which you can double check since I've been discussing these things on this account name since two site migrations ago.
See, this is the exact kind of shit I would expect from a smug ideological child, not an experienced civil libertarian. The civil libertarian would have immediately thought of multiple egregious incidents, such as the eviction moratorium or student loans.
Again, this strongly predisposes me to think you're college aged at best, and deeply embedded in ideologically progressism. "Well known", because Politico and NYT described him that way last week when you and everyone else heard of him for the first time. If you'd actually been adult enough to be politically minded for longer than your account existed, you'd be expected to be aware that there's a wee bit of friction between the Bush Republicans and the Trump ones.
Oh, good, you did eventually, inadvertently, acknowledge that all this furor is over a minor paperwork mixup.
Yes I am aware of those, you clearly lack a basic understanding of law to know the details of what happened there. The Biden Admin choose to interpret certain Covid era laws in a specific way, and the Supreme Court struck those particular interpretations down.
Did the Biden admin defy the courts ruling and continue interpreting those rules in that way? Despite his (irresponsible) posturing, he did not. The Biden admin pivoted onto a different narrower set of rules that it believed (or at least claimed to believe, law is not a mind reader) gave such powers from Congress.
The Supreme Court ruling on the Biden admin was not a generalist denial of student loans or eviction moratoriums as a concept, it was them denying the specific interpretations of specific passed laws.
Your failure to understand the complexity of law and the limits of specific rulings does not change anything there. Congress could have passed bills giving that authority, the Biden admin interpretated certain bills as giving that authority, the SC said "no, it's not." and the Biden admin obeyed, pivoting onto a different legally distinct argument.
If you don't know about him, that's on you. I grew up in a family of lawyers and was planning to attend law school myself for a long while before I decided for a better work life balance for my kid. I still am interested in a lot of it, and I'm aware of Wilkinson from way before this. He is well known in the field. Also he's not a Bush era nominee, he was under Reagan. Not the biggest importance but such failure at basic details is a great highlight of why you don't understand the complex details.
Well tell that to the courts, maybe you'll be the one to convince Roberts and Alito and Thomas and all three Trump nominated justices that it's just a minor paperwork mixup. I'm sure you can find the contact info of a staffer or something somewhere online who will listen to your expert understanding of the law and pass it on.
Or perhaps instead of projecting idealogical capture onto me, you could look inside yourself and go "Do I really understand this better than a 9-0 ruling with six conservative judges, three of whom were appointed by Trump's own first administration?", realize the answer is no and then ask yourself why you're so invested into it that you had thought that was the case at all.
Either Trump managed to pick three secret compromised liberals for the court, had no involvement in his own admin's selection (that's concerning and poor leadership if true, I hope not) or the case is more complex than your layman understanding of law leads you to believe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link