site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34137 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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 am very happy to see 1 and 2, and very unhappy about number 3.

  1. I don't have strong feelings about the substance of this either way, but it is very nice to see someone responding to a SC ruling they don't like the way they are supposed to - passing a new law. The court says the law currently doesn't work the way you want it to, so change the law don't just fight about the court. I'd hope this succeeds this even though I don't care about the merits just because I want everyone to respond to SC rulings in this productive manner.

  2. I think this is good and I have been advocating this plan for years. Every President gets exactly 2 picks, they happen regularly every 2 years. This lowers the luck factor in the court both high and low, makes terms a little shorter which is probably good, and should as a result hopefully lower the tensions around Presidential elections on this front.

  3. WTF is this supposed to be. Impeachment is the answer to this, just like it is for Presidents and other electeds. This just seems like an attempt to get a set of seemingly neutral rules which can be wielded in an decidedly unneutral manner in order to be able to force the other side's justices out even though you don't have the votes to impeach.

1 is bad, it puts each former president at the mercy of his successors, as there are several broad statutes that would apply to common presidential decisions. It also grants Congress too much power, radically changing the constitutional order. Reducing immunity? Fair enough (though I imagine we'll see the courts limit it on their own). Eliminating it? Another thing entirely.

2 is bad, as it will increase politicization. They already try to avoid the luck factors by often resigning under favorable presidents. This forces supreme court to be top of the mind for every election.

I think 2 is a mistake. It means that a president can effectively shift a little over 20% of the court to his POV per term. If you already had a few allies, it easily removes checks and balances against the president. If you get two terms, you are almost ensured to have a majority.

But the rules now mean that some Presidents can get really lucky (or unlucky). George H.W. Bush and Trump were one term Presidents and both got 3 SC judges. Clinton and Obama only got two (Obamas third being stolen by McConnell).

W got 2 nominees in 2 terms, but notably both were in his second term. So his first had zero.

I am in full agreement with you on 1, ambivalent about 2 (i think there are reasonable arguments to be made either way), and agree that 3 is an obvious end-run around not having enough votes to impeach.

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