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 -
It really wasn't that massive of an escalation, and while Bork was the start, it wasn't payback thirty years in the making, it was payback about three years in the making, since it was 2013 where Democrats decided that a simple majority was sufficient. That was the sign that judges are no longer a bipartisan affair, but rather simply the force of the majority. It was a mistake, a bad one, and one that cost the Democrats immediately. I don't know why you're trying to recast it as some standalone injustice instead of the tit matching the Democrat's tat.
It's very simple. If Harry Reid doesn't strip all power from the majority in 2013, then McConell doesn't retaliate in 2016 when Scalia dies. Reid didn't do it out of nowhere, he was reacting to the Republican stonewalling. The republicans didn't just stonewall for no reason, they had grievances going back beyond that. And so on. Bork is a half-dozen turns backward on the screw.
It obviously was a massive escalation. Even if you can’t agree on that, at least consider the left believes it to be one because they lost out on a seat. (Had Hillary won, then it would have been a disruption to the norm, but not have changed the court’s balance.)
Senate rules are a total shit show in an era when norms have been significantly disrupted. I’d prefer that trend stop, even when in any particular case the result is one I favor.
This was a big tat. You can argue it was justified and clearly it has paid off in the short term, but arguing it was not a big tat just seems ridiculous. Had the other side done it I would be having the same discussion but some people here would be flipped.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link