site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32864 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.

It's not even the weirdest thing they found on him, apparently he signed a bill that redefined the term "sexuality" to include pedophilia.

I don't think this attack works. The new definition specifies that sexual orientation is an attraction to a person without regard to their sex. Age is not sex. "I'm attracted to this person because of their age" would not be a sexual attraction under this definition.

Disagree. The definition is kind of a disaster in general. As you say it states that it is "attraction to a person without regard to their sex" which is not at all the same as "attraction to a person because of their sex". If a person is equally attracted to little girls and little boys, how does this definition exclude him?

Such a person's sexual orientation would be "bisexual" since they are attracted to people of either sex. Whether someone is a pedophile seems to me orthogonal to the question of their sexual orientation under the statute. The age part isn't relevant to the analysis. "pedophile" is not a distinct sexual orientation because it's not about the target of attractions sex.

That seems like what the original wording that was removed in the redefinition Walz signed, "Sexual orientation does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult" would imply?

If someone was a bisexual pedophile, I would expect discrimination against them based on their bisexuality to be prohibited, but discrimination against them based on their pedophilia to not be prohibited. So I'd want to clarify in law that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation for the purpose of discrimination law. That seems like exactly what the pre-revision wording does.

I guess I view the explicit exemption for pedophilia as unnecessary. The definition of sexual orientation already precludes it. So it was removed for that reason. Rather than because the MN legislature wanted to prohibit discrimination against pedophiles.

I'm just a little skeptical that out of all the potential redundancies in the legal code, they went after this one, particularly when "is pedophilia a sexuality" is the kind of thing that is actually up for debate. The legal code is not trying to minimize word count, and while I could see a case for not putting the exemption in in the first place, I don't see a reason to remove it once it's in there, unless you actually care about the effect

And the person who introduced the bill is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Finke, a poorly-passing MTF who seems a lot more motivated by trans ideology than systematic optimization of the legal code.

Such a person's sexual orientation would be "bisexual" since they are attracted to people of either sex.

And does the statute protect people on the basis of their, ahem, "bisexuality"?

Sure. If you wanted to fire a person because they were attracted to both men and women, that would be prohibited. If you wanted to fire them because they were attracted to children, that would be permitted.

If you wanted to fire them because they were attracted to children, that would be permitted.

It used to, but where does it permit this now?

It doesn't explicitly permit it, but neither do it's terms forbid it.

https://www.house.mn.gov/cco/journals/2023-24/J0426057.htm#7102

I think the amendment added to the bill clears this up pretty cleanly.

@wraelk, @AshLael, @zeke5123a

More comments

Holy shit that is damning.

The most generous thing you can say about the amended statute is that it doesn't explicitly make paedophilia a protected class. But removing the explicit exclusion while directing the courts to interpret the bill's provisions "liberally" is more than a little alarming.

Black letter law is that you make inferences from what a legislature strikes. So if there was an extant provision excluded X and then the legislature specifically strikes the X exclusion, courts must infer (unless there is strong evidence to the contrary) there is no X exclusion.

This coupled with the explanation makes clear what this law results in.

Sure... I still doubt a court would actually read the law that way (even though I totally agree that would be the normal and "correct" reading), just because WTF. But even if so, there's still no excuse for making the change in the first place.

Haha yeah. The legal implication is clear but sometimes courts will go out of their way to avoid such a crazy thing.

That…that is something the republicans need to blast 24/7 (after the Dems confirm him as VP).

I'm not sure if it's sufficiently substantive. Do issues like this motivate people at the national level?

I feel like “dude wants to protect pedos” plays.

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