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 -
A SCOTUS ruling is not a law. However, the constitution is, and it does suffer from the problem you have observed. Except, is it a problem?
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
I am not a legal expert, but I think there's nothing in the US Code that explains what the punishment for forcing you to shelter and feed a soldier is. What happens if Major González forces you to shelter and feed one of her soldiers during peacetime? You sue her! Just like the soccer kids, you come up with a punishment you deem appropriate and ask the court to levy it. And the whole judicial process is a solved problem. If Major González is able to avoid trial or punishment, you have bigger problems in the US.
What's the point of laws that include consequences for breaking them, then? When the state itself is a plaintiff you need laws that are written like this to direct the agents of the state that act on its behalf. Why did Hammurabi bother with his code of laws, then? The other point of laws that include consequences for breaking them is simplifying the job of the judges. Common law requires to judges to be aware of existing precedents to avoid unjust unequal verdicts. Having a code of laws for common, typical infractions reduces the burden on the court system.
Should there be a law like this for AA in college admissions, or should there be a bunch of "Wang v. Harvard" lawsuits? I think the latter option is much more American in spirit.
Shelter would probably constitute illegal entry under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 929(b). Food would seem to be theft or wrongful appropriation under section 921, or, depending on the facts, robbery under section 922
More options
Context Copy link
There is a third point to having laws that include consequences for breaking them, which I think is relevant in this case. It's to ensure uniformity of treatment, and therefore fairness, among cases. If we end up with a thousand Wang v. Harvards, it could end up that one Wang runs out of money for lawyers and settles for $100, another Wang loses his case due to an incompetent attorney, while a third Wang gets an eight-digit payout. All while a thousand other Wangs go about their lives completely aware that they had the ability to sue. We know from criminal studies that certainty of being caught (and therefore punished) is more important for deterrence than the magnitude of the punishment, and if instead of having a well-known penalty, Harvard is playing the roulette wheel every time they do a discrimination, the deterrence factor is much smaller.
I agree that a massive sue-fest is hyper-American and it appeals to me on a gut level, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the way that it obscures what the EV of discriminating is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link