site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   28384 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 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.

Yeah, the guy is legitimately terrible, and this is essentially the best possible case for those in favor of gun control.

I'm not sure how broad the implications are. The court only ruled that the statute was fine in some applications, not necessarily in general, and they didn't really address due process questions, as they weren't asked to. (Or, as Thomas pointed out, the commerce clause, but I wouldn't expect Roberts and Kavanaugh to be willing to start radically curtailing the extent of the commerce clause to what it actually means). It's entirely possible that we see more cases on the exact same provision.

It's entirely possible that we see more cases on the exact same provision.

Much of the frustration here is that we've had years of better cases on the exact same provision, and Gorsuch didn't even write a dissent from denial of cert. There's some firearms people who are really hoping that SCOTUS just wanted to have a Bad Guys Can't Own Guns case first, but it's very hard to see that as anything but copium, and I don't think even the copium will survive either if Range (where the lower court found that a complete ban on possession for a 95 conviction for food stamp fraud was found unconstitutional) gets GVR'd with a dissent this week or the next.

I think maybe this opinion leaves a "Second Amendment +" case, where someone brings a 'normal' right case that also includes gun ownership, and gets more deference than they would under the traditional guns-are-always-a-compelling-interest bullshit, a la Caniglia, but Roberts' decision is just way too permissive in its writing, and I don't see it allowing any meaningful circuit split to develop for them to review with the text it just handed the coastal circuits, and the court will always have an excuse without a circuit split.

Mai is settled law, today; Roberts just saved himself from having to write the opinion.

((EDIT : And today's social media censorship case dodging any substantiative questions by complaining that the plaintiffs didn't bring a time machine to prove standing, and the leak of a similar punt for the EMTALA case, point the same direction, point similar directions.))

I don't think even the copium will survive either if Range (where the lower court found that a complete ban on possession for a 95 conviction for food stamp fraud was found unconstitutional) gets GVR'd with a dissent this week or the next.

Called it, at least on the GVR. We'll see how the copium goes.

It's entirely possible that we see more cases on the exact same provision.

The court has a way of handling those: cert denied. If the Fifth Circuit actually gets defiant, they'll reverse the decisions without argument.

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