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 -
What compromise could the right offer the left that they would want? And what compromise could the left offer the right that they'd be willing to give up? The right would probably want stricter voter harvesting laws and some kind of approval system for vote-by-mail, and better oversight for vote counting in exchange for what checking IDs at the voting site? Most reasonable right-aligned people I've seen do not believe that voter fraud in that sense of someone voting twice or without the legal right to vote voting is rampant or affecting the election count to a changeable degree. The left has all the power, is already in the lead for the most part, and gets a political issue that at worst makes them seem naive in that they're defending the poor and downtrodden.
Also, even discussing the compromise will shift the debate landscape and it will suddenly not be about what the unreasonable people are saying. It's easier to come at this saying, well if the problem is just people who shouldn't be voting having a higher barrier of entry to committing voter fraud then why couldn't they come to some compromise? Because the people that seriously want to do something about this topic have serious changes in mind and most of them have nothing to do with how their opponents characterize their position. So, the people that think thousands of people illegally voted to a degree to change the outcome of an election are not going to want this because they're likely unreasonable because they are the caricature their opponent uses as an example of the other side and the people who would make the compromise probably wouldn't see the value in compromising toward something that amounts to giving themselves a worse position because making it easier for people to vote doesn't work in their favor: most people are left, why would they compromise to get more people IDs to vote when they're likely to not vote for their side by two metrics because they're more likely to be left-leaning in general and also specifically more likely to be left-leaning because of the situation they're in. It makes no sense to give your opponent a win like that to get some law about people checking state-IDs which probably from the evidence, I suspect, would not change anything, and even if it would it wouldn't be enforced anyway.
And that state census solution of finding people for 10k and forcing them to register sounds like it would be insanely disapproved by both sides as being authoritarian government overreach that would likely never be fully finished. It sounds like a make-work investigatory bureau would be created for the purpose and they'd likely antagonize many people, accomplish very little, and end up being used for things entirely unrelated to its stated purpose because its purpose would be impossible to accomplish anyway.
I don't know what the solution is but from my perspective it seems like mostly people entrenched in this aren't looking for solutions because the issue is more valuable existing than a resolution of the issue because most people don't care. I'm against voter fraud (so is most everyone), I want to help the poor (so does most everyone). It's probably a political issue of magnitude precisely because it's really hard to politically step in it because the issue is so seemingly contained to itself. Other soundbyte positions like being "for jobs" (but what about free trade?) or wanting to lower taxes (but how will you pay for anything?) require much more complex solutions. The issues without compromise are the easiest to represent yourself with the more compromise that leaks into whatever the issue is then the harder it would be to take a stance or even talk about at all. I think politically wedge issues are too easy to give up because most of them have two positions with no real nuance that you can talk about while appealing to your base, if they start talking about compromise then they're talking to people who won't vote for them so what's the advantage in an election? And what's the advantage of making the compromise when it comes to governing for that matter?
I mean, surely from the left's point of view the compromise of 'we'll make it easy to vote if you agree to ID checks' is a massive win? Soft voter suppression is a real issue wheras election security is a nothing-burger. "we'll solve this issue that loses you blues a fuckton of votes if we can also solve this issue that loses us reds basically no votes"? Ka-ching!
Of course, the left could always argue that even free and easy-to-get ID is still suppression as it might be too high of a hurdle for some of their voters (and they'd probably be right) but I don't see why they'd be opposed to the deal in principle.
Question is why don’t the democrats make that offer explicit? Perhaps one of your premises are wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
No, it isn't. Claims of voter suppression hurting democrats, where falsifiable, have been falsified. Even liberal journalist rags admit this, the evidence is so overwhelming that it isn't happening. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/voter-id-laws-fraud-turnout-study-research
"Get rid of voter suppression" would do nothing except empower the federal government to throw more snitfits about state level policies. One almost suspects that putting more things under the remit of federal bureaucratic micromanagement is the actual goal.
I will admit I'm surprised at the results of that study, But if anything it backs up my point, or at least doesn't contradict it. Voter supression is more than just ID requirements, it's the general inconvenience of voting. Any compromise that the Reds could offer the Blues along the lines of "everyone needs voter ID but we'll make election day a day off" would be a massive win for the Blues. The Reds stand to gain nothing (as per your study) but the Blues get to defang a major Red talking point while gaining no votes at worst and a boatload of them at best.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well concerning what the right wants, I suppose we've moved to "any verification at all that a mail in ballot is from who it says it is from" now that signature verification is waylaid.
So at this point it is a game of force and boots on the ground I suppose, a hard prisoner's dilemma.
More options
Context Copy link
Did you actually read the (offhanded, I admit) proposal? It was short. It involved creating a state-level capacity to locate disenfranchised (read: poor, illegal, disabled, low-executive) people and extend state services to them. Inside five years it'll be the premier way to access lumpenproles to buy votes from them. What compromise is possibly better than actually, actively, implementing your opposition's agenda for them?
EDIT: You reacted to it, so you must have. I am confused.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link