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 -
This is my feeling as well (hence my opening comment about doubting the impact of most of this week's cases). What will limit the impact of this case, of course, is just the facts of commerce; most people are pretty happy to take money for whatever, and there are so many alternative cake bakers, web designers, etc. that the freedom to refuse service will generally amount the freedom to get out-competed.
There really does seem to be a bit of a gulf between enforcement on progressive versus conservative court victories. The Supreme Court enforces a novel approach to marriage and we start throwing political dissidents in jail. The Supreme Court says "stop discriminating by race, you can consider its impact in individual lives but you can't make it a determinative factor" and Harvard effectively flips them the bird and says "who's gonna make me?" Not that it would probably be great optics for the right, but can you imagine the president of Harvard going to jail for contempt of court here?
I honestly don't know what Roberts is playing at, in these cases. He seems to have managed to achieve results that are easy to report in maximally inflammatory ways, potentially imposing political costs on right-wing candidates, while failing to generate any rulings that seem likely to noticeably and impactfully protect the interests they purport to protect.
A public official who is jailed for contempt of court for refusing to obey a court order to comply with the law is not being jailed for "dissenting." She was free to quit her job (as many public officials have done in similar circumstances in the past) and picket the clerk's office, or keep her job and picket on her off hours. She was also free to write opeds, to lobby, and to dissent all she wanted in other ways. But she was not free to refuse to do the job that the taxpayers pay her to do. And of course someone who is jailed for contempt of court can be jailed only until she agrees to comply with the court order or it becomes clear that continued imprisonment will not compel her to do so.
This is incredibly common, see public sector unions, SCOTUS justices legislating from the bench, etc. I’m fine if “throw them in jail” becomes the typical response but we know it won’t.
None of those are examples of people refusing to obey a court order, were they? If they were, they should also be jailed for contempt. Which (does indeed happen)[https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/nyregion/transit-union-leader-sentenced-to-10-days-in-jail-over-strike.html#:~:text=Roger%20Toussaint%2C%20the%20president%20of,to%2010%20days%20in%20jail.]
And, regardless, the laziness of public sector union members does not transform Kim Davis into someone who was jailed for being a "dissident."
I see little functional difference between “not doing something you’re supposed to” and “doing something you’re not supposed to” other than the placement of the “not”. These sorts of semantic differences are the playground of lawyers though so I don’t expect to make any headway.
? I didn't make that distinction. The difference is between someone who has disobeyed a court order -- whether that be an order to do something, or an order to refrain from doing something -- and someone who has not.
And, again, regardless, the laziness of public sector union members does not transform Kim Davis into someone who was jailed for being a "dissident."
Obergefell is the poster child for legislating from the bench. That’s not the job my tax dollars pay the judicial branch to do. Defying the constitution is fine, but I guess defying a court order is just a bridge too far.
I don’t care much for the dissident discussion, it’s just semantics. I’d say she was definitionally a “dissident”, and she was jailed for it. But Bill Ayers is also a “dissident”. The difference in their treatment at the hands of The Law is very instructive.
It isn't about a bridge too far. People who defy court orders end up in prison for contempt. Had Bill Ayers defied a court order, he would have been jailed for contempt. Just as members of the Chicago Seven were, and members of the Black Panthers were, and plenty of other Ayers-adjacent people. Getting upset because Kim Davis was put in prison for contempt for refusing to comply with a court order is asking that she receive preferential treatment.
Sometimes. It often depends who’s doing the defying.
My word! Well it’s a good thing he only committed a bombing campaign and didn’t defy a court order! Seems like bombing, looting, and burning the possessions of normies isn’t too big of a deal but god help you if you cross a lawyer…
I won’t deny this. My rules applied unfairly > your rules applied unfairly and all that. In my view one side has gotten preferential treatment for quite a while now and excuse me if I find it a bit hard to believe you wouldn’t be a little upset if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that we both want someone’s rules applied fairly but it’s been a while since that’s been the case in my eyes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The affirmative action issue is a winning issue for republicans. A large majority of whites, Hispanics and Asians support eliminating affirmative action. It is almost a dead heat amongst blacks.
If Biden tries to make the affirmative action case this term’s Dobbs, he will lose. This is one where there is a big disconnect between the democrat activist base and the population (mirror result of abortion).
More options
Context Copy link
I keep saying that, and people keep complaining I'm too black pilled.
And the Supreme Court says "no, you can't cancel all the student loans" and Biden goes "We'll figure out another way to do it". And flips the bird to the Republicans about the provision in the debt ceiling deal too. And there's Bruen, the main effect of which has been to make it even MORE illegal to carry a gun in Times Square -- before it required a permit you couldn't get, now it might be easier to get the permit but the permit won't help you.
At this point if Alabama purported to nullify all gay marriages and arrested gay couples claiming to be married... it'd be no more of a lawless action than what the Democrats do.
More options
Context Copy link
People pay a fortune to live in an area with "good schools". Groups that are overrepresented in causing trouble can cost far more money than the revenue they bring in. When I worked in a ghetto the gym I went to had outrageous prices on the door, yet offered discounts to almost every pro social group such as students, office workers, retired people. Basically they priced everyone they didn't want out of the gym.
A handful of crazy people can scare away a hundred mild mannered customers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link