site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29899 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 12, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why wouldn't the House of Lords need to pass a bill to abolish the House of Lords when they need to pass every other bill?

It would, but it’s constitutionally considered impossible in practice that they could vote against such a bill, it would be like the king vetoing it.

Why would it be impossible?

Because since the late 19th century at the latest, the other parts of the triumvirate (Lords and monarch) have accepted in practice that they’ve lost all power and must defer to the democratically elected chamber on everything of great import. If you’re asking if there’s any technical reason, then the answer is no, the same way there’s no technical reason why the king can’t just veto any law he doesn’t like or appoint some random person prime minister (a role which itself has no constitutional basis and is entirely informal).

You might realise at this stage that the British system is completely untested since the 17th century and held together solely by collective agreement on its base principles, but it is what it is.

I wonder why the UK even bothers with a bicameral legislature if one of the halves is expected to just rubber stamp everything the other does. Seems silly to me, but I guess it's not my country so it doesn't much matter what I think.

Inertia and tradition like many things.

Canada has a similar setup, where the Senate very rarely tosses a bill out. As part of my job, I have read tons of transcripts of debates over various bills, especially subcommittee ones where they get down to the nitty-gritty.

The Senate debates have WAY less political grandstanding and partisan antics. They seem far better at articulating what they are trying to accomplish and whether that lines up with the proposed law. They'll often send the bill back with modifications, and even without those the discussions on what they are trying to do are useful for interpreting the law in the trenches.

Whether this service is worth the costs and downsides of the Senate, I'm not sure, and I have no idea if the UK works similarly. But I've definitely gotten some use out of them.

Each province has eliminated its upper house though, and the Conservatives did try to kill it by not appointing any Senators. They'd probably have gotten rid of it had they been able, but it would require an unlikely constitutional amendment.

For the same reasons the US still has a Congress (since in practice it’s the bureaucrats who make the laws there).

We'll see how that goes now with Chevron deference no longer being the law of the land.

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