site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29976 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.

I'm not sure what exactly Rahimi entails. Gorsuch posed it as only saying that banning firearms, temporarily, from those judged, by a court, to be dangerous, is permissible.

The court in Rahimi accepted that laws against "going armed to the terror of the public" were historically significant. This translates into a blank check for any restriction on carry. Further, they accepted Rahimi, which walked back gun rights (not just by those judged by a court to be dangerous, but by those with a restraining order against them without any finding that they were dangerous), while ignoring many other cases where various courts have been ignoring Bruen.

Not quite. Bruen also recognized the same laws as historical precedents, but not for the law there in question. I don't have a good enough sense of how the court would continue to apply it more broadly, but I read Rahimi as mostly saying that "if you're dangerous, they can take your guns away." Which, will undoubtedly be attempted to be construed broadly, but Rahimi is clear (see page 15) that this is only allowing bans that show the individual in question a threat, unlike in Bruen, where they struck it down, because it presumed that they were lawful.

That is, it has to be default-legal to carry.

It is ruling only when a court decides that someone presents a threat. It's mentioned in the main opinion several times. For example, in the conclusion:

Rather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Section 922(g)(8), which the court upheld:

(8)who is subject to a court order that— (A)was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B)restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C) (i)includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii)by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

Note (8)(C)(ii), and note the "or" in (8)(C)(i). A court need merely order a person to not do something they're already prohibited from doing, without any finding they they represent a credible threat of any sort, and they lose their firearms rights. They didn't reach the constitutionality of (8)(C)(ii) in Rahimi, but they never will. The lower courts will take this decision as meaning the whole idea of "restraining order = lose firearms rights" is validated, and the Supreme Court will refuse to address the question again.

That is, it has to be default-legal to carry.

LOL, it isn't, not in New York or New Jersey certainly. If I strap a pistol on my hip and walk around my neighborhood, and a cop sees me, I'm going to prison with John Roberts's blessing. And despite there being ample cases to say that they really meant what they said in Bruen, the Supreme Court has taken none of them. The conservatives on the Supreme Court (except Thomas) do not want people to actually carry a gun; they support gun rights in the abstract as part of their high-class debating society, that's all.

Yeah, they definitely left up in the air whether it as a whole is fine. (Though Gorsuch, at least, seemed opposed.)

Fair enough, who knows whether they'll address it again. Why do you think they took Bruen, then, if you think they don't care? It's (mostly) the same justices?

Why do you think they took Bruen, then, if you think they don't care? It's (mostly) the same justices?

They enjoyed the argument. It's not that they don't care; it's that they positively do not want the scenario I've been putting forth -- any unconvicted citizen being able to buy a gun, load it, and carry it into a major Blue city (they're probably mostly thinking Washington, D.C.) legally -- to happen. But they position they've taken in their high-class debate club is that the Second Amendment provides such a right.

Roberts, especially, is fond of decisions with no practical impact. Even with the recent decision striking down application of Sarbanes-Oxley to most Jan 6 protestors did nothing; the defendant in the case had enough other charges against him to put him away forever.

When Obergefell hit, people were getting gay married in every state in weeks if not days. The one resister in the entire country got fired and successfully sued for tens of thousands of dollars. It's been years since Bruen and it's still illegal for me to buy a gun or to carry one. Clearly the Supreme Court can make decisions which have effect; they just chose not to.

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