site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   28099 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's a scenario I've seen postulated elsewhere, that I'm not sure how plausible it is as a possibility (not enough of an expert on the legal system). Specifically, judges can issue suspended sentences, where a defendant is spared jail time subject to abiding by certain conditions set by the judge. These conditions can include refraining from behaviors, contacts, etc. associated with the crime in question — such as giving someone convicted of a drug crime a jail sentence suspended on the condition they go to rehab, stay clean, stay away from known dealers/drug houses, etc.

Given that the 34 charges for which Trump is being sentenced are related to political campaign finance, the proposed scenario is that Judge Merchan gives Trump serious jail time, but suspends it on the condition that Trump refrain from running or campaigning for political office. That is, give Trump the choice of dropping out and letting the Republican convention four days later name someone else their candidate, or going to jail (where he dies — depending on your views and flavor of the scenario, either from old age after how ever many years, or from getting Epsteined before election day).

Is there some rule about sentencing that prevents this?

I hope he tries this. Trump will win elections from a jail cell.

Of course, he won’t try it. It’s a bridge too far, even for New York.

Trump will win elections from a jail cell.

Not if they Epstein him first — assuming it's even necessary, given his likely inability to overcome the "margin of fraud" after all the "Party of Law and Order" Republicans refuse to vote for "a convicted felon" just like they did with Stevens.

Murdering their political opponent in jail would be a bridge too far for many democrats.

Believing that their political opponent killed himself in prison wouldn't, though.

Who would believe this? No one believes Epstein killed himself. Few people even believe McAfee killed himself.

People will believe whatever they need to believe to justify themselves, so long as it's at least plausibly compatible with reality.

ETA: Would you really have such a hard time believing that Trump suffered a sudden and lethal heart attack while alone in his cell?

Any Democrat faced with the choice of believing "the guys on my side are so evil they murdered their rival to keep him out of office" and "The other side's crook couldn't handle prison so shot himself in the back of the head, twice" will pick the latter, every time. And call you a loon for believing otherwise.

I hope he does do that. It would lay bare for the world to see the motive with zero excuse. Get Trump to Florida and say Molon Labe

Florida is required to adhere to New York court decisions. Roberts would sign the order himself. And if DeSantis didn't play ball anyway, there's Federal Marshalls.

I’m not sure Roberts would. He can see what this is and the logic of the Colorado decision applies directly to this case.

It would lay bare for the world to see the motive with zero excuse.

So what? What does it matter if people see "the motive with zero excuse"? Let them see, and get mad, and stew impotently in their anger, doing nothing about it because there's nothing they can do about it.

Get Trump to Florida and say Molon Labe

And when they do indeed "come and take him," drag him back to NY and lock him up?

It's a cute trick, but probably one step too far even for the New York Democrats. After the earlier kerfuffle about States not being allowed to determine eligibility for the Presidency, even John Roberts won't let it go.

even John Roberts won't let it go.

Even after Rep Raskin and the Justice Department force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves?

And besides, John Roberts can make his decision, and then let him try to enforce it.

Raskin and the Justice Department lack the power to force Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. I can't see Thomas doing so. They could try to impeach and convict, but they don't have the votes.

The same can be said, at that point, for the state of New York.

The state of New York has armed men in their employ, paid specifically to enforce such decisions. The Supreme Court has literally no actual enforcement power whatsoever beyond the willingness of government officials to willingly heed its rulings.

There are plenty of red law enforcement under federal employ. For that matter the NYPD is fairly red.

There are plenty of red law enforcement under federal employ

None of whom answer (directly) to the Supreme Court. And most cops, regardless of political alignment, are likely to put keeping their jobs and pensions over their personal politics, and the latter means following orders from above. As one put it about why he'd go door-to-door confiscating guns if orders to do so came down "try telling your boss you're not going to do what he's directly told you to do, and see if you still have a job."

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats