site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32892 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 5, 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.

Therefore, until we have a text that actually states how it would work, there is really no point in debating exactly what would happen.

Here is one proposal’s specific text.

It describes this as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the senate. What does that imply, exactly? I assume the house would still be needed.

I'm not sure. Confirmation of justices is solely a Senatorial power, so it could just be motioning around that part of things, both to say that the bill's appointment scheduling stuff is not dependent on House votes, and imply that the Senate can change it again at any time they want.

The rest of it needs to get passed as a full law, including House and Presidential approval. There's some serious questions about how well jurisdiction-stripping could work out as a pragmatic question -- AEDPA is pretty illustrative -- but to the extent it does anything it has to be part of a federal law. Limiting when the President can submit a SCOTUS nominee might or might not be constitutional in any case, but it definitely wouldn't mean anything as solely a senatorial rule except to say that the Senate would auto-refuse (or auto-not-vote).

The severability section at the end amuses me greatly.

If I'm reading that language right, the effect would be that the president makes his two nominations each term, and if that pushes the number of justices above 9, the older ones don't vote on appellate cases (i.e. most cases).

If this version were enacted President Harris would almost certainly miss the date for the first nomination, and so only get at most one nomination. Doesn't seem like the scenario @Felagund is worried about would occur.

Is there any reason they wouldn't amend that provision?

I mean, I could postulate some, but it's honestly way too early for that. Never mind amending, they could just vote on a differently-drafted proposal.

I've seen plenty of badly-drafted bills and I'm not going to tell you not to be alert and concerned about the potential for negative consequences. But until we see legislation to the contrary I think it's sensible to at least consider the possibility that the intent of this effort is exactly what it's being sold as rather than a stealth attempt to pack the court immediately.

That depends very heavily on the law not getting passed before January 20th, 2025:

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply beginning on the date on which the first full term of a President commences pursuant to section 101 of title 3, United States Code, after the date of enactment of this Act.

Or, if passed in the new session, not being modified.

True, but there's a Republican house right now, and if the Democrats win the house my understanding is that the new congress doesn't sit until Jan 13th, and it would be pretty remarkable to pass a bill like this a week into a new congress.

It'd be a remarkable bill to pass in any circumstance. I don't see a rule against it, even for the light value of rules that could be nuked a la filibuster.

We don't have any proposed text. It would all be up to how they design it exactly.

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