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 -
This is the key to one of the two arguments I see made as to how America separating from England was legitimate, but no attempt to separate from America, past or future, can ever be legitimate. That is that when the Founding Fathers fought the War of Independence, they replaced the British system of government with a better one, but no attempt to break from America can ever produce a better government, because the system the Founders bequeathed us is the most perfect system of government that has ever existed or will ever exist.
Most commonly I encounter this from Mormons, who hold that the US Constitution is divinely inspired, but I also sometimes find non-Mormons who seem to hold it in just about the same level of reverence. It is, for them, a sacred document which can never fail, only be failed, etc.
(I'm reminded of a fight on Twitter between two groups of "American patriots" denouncing each other as vile traitors because, while they both agreed that — to put it in terms of the Westphalian nation-state that they did not, themselves, use — the "American Nation" and the "American State" are increasingly at odds, they very much disagreed as to which of those two should be defended from the other. The angriest denunciations came when one nation-defender replied to a state-defender's invocation of the Founding Fathers by pointing out that one such Father, in one of those "sacred" documents, said that "…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…" and that the person to whom he was replying had himself acknowledged that the government as currently instituted is increasingly "destructive of these ends" for many people. The replies (where not simply accusations of "treason" and oblique references to the punishment therefor) were very much of the above character: that such writings only apply to an "imperfect" government like 1776 British rule, but that if our perfect, divinely-ordained system has become injurious to the "Safety and Happiness" of some group of citizens, then that's a problem with those citizens, who should be rightly replaced by "better" people.)
(The other argument for legitimacy of American Independence but not other secession is a view that "voice" strictly dominates over "exit," so that separation is only legitimate in the total absence of democratic representation, and even the slightest democratic "voice" renders "exit" illegitimate. I did see once, when someone asserted this view online, another person pushed back by asking then, if early 20th century Britain had given India a single representative in the House of Commons, would this have then rendered Gandhi, Nehru, and the entire independence movement immoral? The first person did, in fact, "bite the bullet" and say that, yes, it would have.)
Isn’t the east response to this “The US failed the constitution; new partition of US will have the exact same constitution but actually follow it”
More options
Context Copy link
My preferred argument on that point works out a bit differently. In my opinion, a more perfect system of government is unlikely to be achieved, but not axiomatically impossible. Further, "more perfect" would be measured in terms of both objectively produced effects and optimized fit for the given population--the best scheme of government for population A may not be the best scheme of government in every detail for population B, and the government best fit for population A may produce better or worse effects than the government best fit for population B. That said, trends would likely be observable.
Also, I think Jefferson's analysis applies outside the American context as well. Broadly speaking, I'd apply the same rubric to a secessionist movement in Quebec, or Scotland, or Spain. My inclination based on my current knowledge is that those movements do not have an adequate justification for secession, but that judgment is contingent on my understanding of current facts. A change in conditions or more information could conceivably change that view.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link