site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29845 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump probably doesn't get immunity for his acts on January 6th under this decision. Unfortunately for the prosecution, since those acts consist of Tweets containing clearly protected speech, which do not urge violence, that's going to be tough to pass Constitutional muster for other reasons.

As for whether anyone has done anything comparable, I'd be very surprised if no President has urged on a rally by supporters. Whether any has told them to go home after the rally turned to a riot, I don't know.

urged on a rally by supporters

This is a ridiculous way to describe January 6

This is a ridiculous way to describe January 6

I am not describing January 6 that way. I am describing Trump's speech starting at 11am that way. The riot had not yet started; it started during the speech but Trump didn't know about it, since he was at the Ellipse, not the Capitol. The breach of the Capitol building wasn't until 2pm.

Refusing to issue any kind of statement asking his supporters to stand down while they invaded the capitol was also indefensible.

He did, several times. From the Newsweek timeline.

2:38 p.m.: Trump urges people to "support our Capitol police and law enforcement," and tweets that "they are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!"

3:13 p.m.: Trump posts on Twitter that he's asking people at the Capitol to "remain peaceful" and not engage in violence: "Remember, we are the party of law and order–respect the law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

4:17 p.m.: Trump posts a video on social media telling rioters that he knows their pain and hurt. "We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now ... We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. ... So go home. We love you, you're very special. ... I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace," he says.

Why? What specific elements justify stronger language?

The special status applied to J6 was cemented with deliberate lies about the violence committed by the protestors. We know now that they did not, in fact, kill police officers, or anyone for that matter. We know that there was a complete failure of preparation and policing on the part of the government, which made crowd control completely ineffective. We can be pretty sure that there were many plainclothes government agents and informants in the crowd, encouraging others to break the law. We know that the police, lacking manpower, began waving the crowds through, and then that security forces shot an unarmed woman when the crowd tried to enter the chambers themselves.

We know that the protestors brought no guns, even though they could have. We know that they generally did not bring other weapons, despite lies to the contrary. We know they engaged in no serious violence, no serious destruction of property, nor even serious looting, despite complete failure to control the crowd. We know that protesters interrupting congressional deliberations is not some unprecedented event, and in fact Blue protesters have done it repeatedly in the past. We know protesters breaking into secure areas to confront and harass congressional officials is not some unprecedented act; blue protesters have done it before, and without being shot in response.

What's the actual argument?

We can be pretty sure that there were many plainclothes government agents and informants in the crowd, encouraging others to break the law.

Sauce?

"Insurrection" is a ridiculous way to describe J6. "Riot" is probably the most accurate, but it evokes massive BLM-style destruction, so I can understand going for something milder.

I distinguish between the rally, which was the planned event including a march to the Capitol, and the riot which grew out of it, where barricades were broken down, police were assaulted, the Capitol building was vandalized, and the Capitol and legislative officers were entered.

I agree that insurrection is not the right word, but neither is riot. The crowd was trying to stop the election certification, not just registering dissent.

Didn't they literally leave when asked to leave?

Anyway the goal of a riot is not "registering dissent", that's a "demonstration", "protest" or a "rally" that Nybbler used. Therefore "riot" should be perfectly fine.

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