site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   23800 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 17, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not a plus for Federalism when their rights apply everywhere but yours only apply in your home state.

I think there have been inroads in some areas, ie school choice that are more red-state coded, while still taking your overall point

Their right to abortion now only applies in blue states.

And Blues are actively undermining the court because they find that situation intolerable.

How do you mean?

The current Supreme Court situation looks more functional than it did in Mitch Mcconnell’s day.

  • Open defiance to the Court's edicts from blue areas and blue courts, which now appear to have succeeded in forcing the Court to abandon those edicts. The Second Amendment doesn't exist in Blue Tribe areas, and it's now clear that the Supreme Court doesn't have the juice necessary to change that. This problem generalizes to the idea of Constitutional remedies generally.
  • Court Packing or removal of SC justices squarely back in the Overton Window, driven by high-profile attacks on the integrity of the Justices and the legitimacy of the Court. We're now discussing whether the Court's composition should be modified by methods other than the nomination and approval of replacement justices, which is a fairly novel development. The previous precedent was FDR's attempt at court packing, which is widely believed to have shifted the Court's findings, and until recently was universally agreed to be illegitimate.

To quote some high-effort perspective contrary to mine:

And back to jurisprudence, there wasn't necessarily a strong reason to overturn Roe, Hodges was broadly popular but certainly a major event, and as a Supreme Court you do have a certain amount of political capital and around that point they really should have gotten the memo that they were stretching it to breaking.

The conversation is now converging irreversibly on the Supreme Court's "political capital", and that's the end of the Court as an effective conflict-resolution mechanism.

Maine is a blue tribe area, it is all 2A all the way down, same for Vermont, even more blue, also 2A friendly. There is now a 72 hour waiting period in Maine due to the Lewiston shootings, not that one had anything to do with the other from a factual standpoint. But you can buy a gun and tuck it in your waistband in the bluest city in the state if you want.

Is your argument that Vermont and Maine are more central examples of Blue Tribe areas than New York, California, Washington State, Washington DC and Illinois?

No I am saying that the blanket statement of "The Second Amendment doesn't exist in Blue Tribe areas," is provably wrong.

Would you agree that the second amendment doesn't exist in most Blue Tribe areas? Would it be better to break the areas down by population percentage?

All statements are wrong. Some statements are useful. I think my original statement is accurate enough to be more useful than your correction. My point is that important constitutional rights have been denied in large chunks of the country, and those denials have survived long-term challenges, to the point that they are probably not going to be defeated in the forseeable future under current conditions. Further, I argue that the failure of our established mechanisms for resolving constitutional disputes demonstrates that those mechanisms no longer work. Do you disagree?

More comments

But unlike other “rights” most will never use or use only once the abortion “right.” Given that it is trivially easy to travel to any blue (and even many red) state, there isn’t a big restriction on this so called “right.”

Reds don't treat "small restrictions" on their "so called rights" as lightly, I observe.

Consider: most will never use their right to defend their house with lethal force.

I’m making a different point. The right to arms is a daily right. You use it frequently even if generally one of the reasons for the right never materializes.

In contrast with abortion it is one off; not frequent. Provided there are a number of states they provide abortions and given the relative ease of going from A to B there is a very small drop in access to abortions

Any woman who's frequently having less-than-safe sex while not planning to be a mother is using her right to abortion at those moments, same as a gun carrier/owner even as they're not in the process of shooting.

Yes, that's their singular loss.

Laws around soft drugs are another example, even if widely disregarded.

That's federalism but not a case where something credibly* claimed to be a Federal constitutional right was reduced to only holding in some states. If Mississippi didn't have to recognize gay marriage or Florida could ban flag burning, that would be more like it.

* Yes, I realize conservatives don't believe there's credibly a constitutional right to abortion, but I figure having a long-lived Supreme Court precedent holding so is sufficient credibility.

Hasn’t every recent attempt at enforcing flag burning statutes been over pride flags anyways?

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