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 -
The NRA alleges that NYDFS was aware of many other circumstances where Lloyd's and other covered insurance providers were in violation of the law, but verbally offered to Lloyd's employees that, if Lloyd's closed all activities with the NRA, to resolve any non-NRA conflicts via Lloyd's providing a remediation report without a fine or consent decree.
Some of these interpretations are probably specific to recent periods in New York, such as exactly where and when a non-insurer can advertise an insurer's products. Others are broader, and the NRA's CarryGuard program faced similar intervention in Washington State contemporaneously with the New York investigation. And there is an awkward question about how much these rules were predictable interpretations of existing regulation.
I don't know if it does -- and, if it does, I'm skeptical reputational harm is a valid legal tort against state actors acting in their official role -- but it doesn't really matter. Lloyd's did not and pretty clearly will not bring a civil case against New York; another part of the legal charlie foxtrot in this case involved the NRA having to jump through a ton of hoops to serve a subpeona to Lloyd's while trying to get further evidence. They're the ones who would be harmed under this theory, and the courts generally don't accept third-party legal complaints.
While both general liability insurance and Directors and Officers insurance are a good plan for any sufficiently large organization, the controversial nature of the NRA makes it a far greater requirement. The organization and its leadership are routinely targeted with both valid and
spuriousnovel civil litigation, with a tremendous variance in cost of defense, on top of the normal risks. This both impacts the business's bottom line -- even an ultimately dismissed case where the plaintiff is required to pay legal fees and isn't judgement proof is a major cost, and that's not the most common result -- and also results in a feedback loop where now the only people willing to be on the NRA's board are those who don't care about potential personal liability.The NRA offer(ed) multiple major in-person conventions and meetings, and these are major parts of its role as an advocacy group. Nearly all sites require some level of insurance coverage by specific types and grades of insurer just to rent space. Because of the NRA's unusual size, controversial nature, and purpose, these requirements were likely more severe than any other comparable organization.
The NRA offers a variety of insurance programs (underwritten or otherwise provided by regulated insurances) as part of its financial model. While most of its revenue comes from membership fees, training services, etc, these were not a trivial source. And while the NRA has not been completely frozen out from all insurance providers, note that the NRA did not allege that DFS wanted Lloyd's to stop coverage in New York. Not every insurance provider has been cowed from handling NRA-related services, but this almost certainly has impacted both the cost of services and the available profit margin for them.
Some of the insurance products, such as range insurance, are major parts of its outreach, services, and recruitment tools. The NRA was one of the few big programs that can consistently offer good and affordable range insurance, and that's one reason a large number of gun clubs required or encouraged membership, for example. While the changes here are not the sole reason a lot of ranges are starting to look at different options and providers, or devolve to self-insurance -- again, not every insurance provider has been cowed from handling gun-related services, and the NRA has been decidedly less popular for other reasons -- but this seriously undermines the long-term viability of the organization.
DFS does not solely regulate insurance providers, but also banks and merchant services. These are kinda important in a much more short-term framework.
More options
Context Copy link