site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 2022

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.

40
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think this is a very strong argument. Trivially, a portion of covered tenants are effectively unservable, a larger portion of covered tenants are going to be judgement proof, most state eviction systems got absolutely wrecked by the moratorium in ways that prevent a lot of newly-started evictions from actually going through in anything close to a reasonable time frame and further delay them, and being incredibly charitable and assuming that the same people who told SCOTUS about behavior "absent an unexpected change" weren't planning around these things, they still are separately impacting those systems by other bad policies.

As far as I can tell, there have been no successful cases attempting to bring damages against the government -- indeed, the unlawfulness of the moratorium was used to dismiss a suit about the damages for a taking.

And that's for a court case that ultimately decided on statutory interpretation grounds, not takings clause or due process ones. Eg, a case where the courts would have been A-OK if Congress wrote a law.

This isn't quite parallel with the mafia don that theoretically will accept appeals from those under his 'protection', but gives his made men's decisions incredible latitude even in the face of repeated bad acts, and only occasionally has them injure the representatives of even victorious appellants. But it rhymes a lot more than you'd hope.