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 -
Why was Obama entitled to a replacement for RBG? What replacements are Conservatives entitled to, and how is this entitlement adjudicated or enforced?
No such entitlement exists, has ever existed, or ever will exist. There is no legal requirement that the Supreme Court be "balanced", or that either side receives any representation in it beyond what they can secure through winning elections. Progressives abused the Court for decades, claiming that the "Living Constitution" and its emanations and penumbras allowed them to arbitrarily shape the nation's laws. Progressives trampled Conservatives' constitutional and human rights with abandon, and continue to do so to this day.
There has never been a point in living memory when the Supreme Court was not an ideological weapon, only points when that weapon was wielded according to the preferences of partisans of one stripe or the other. Well, live by the sword, die by the sword.
It’s not about “entitled” so much as “stable norm” that was significantly disrupted. There have been many tits and tats regarding both the senate’s rules and the Supreme Court, and this was a big one.
I can agree with you about progressives torturing the plain reading of the law and still note that blockading a president getting to seat a justice during his term was a significant escalation by the GOP. It has paid off in the short term but the longer effects remain to be seen, and I dislike the further degradation of norms by default.
Taking the cynicism of “all that matters is what you can get away with” is not great when either side does it, even when in this case I prefer a conservative tilt. Our constitutional system relies a lot on goodwill and norms and both sides have taken big whacks at it while only being able to see what the other side has done.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link