site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29426 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 19, 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.

The 2A is a pretty meager defense against the general case of government tyranny. Has been for a while.

Fortunately, that was never the strongest argument for it. No, not even at the time of writing. The founders were preempting a more specific subset of tyranny: disarming specific groups. This stemmed from Protestant tensions in the previous century plus a healthy dose of federalist sentiment. See here.

There’s a case for disarming everyone. There’s no case for disarming just Republicans, or just men, or just Mormons, etc.

Compare the 1A. Viewpoint neutrality is really important to American law not because all viewpoints are credible challenges to a tyrant, but because speech is a protected right.

There's no case for specifically disarming a group of people who commit majority of crimes involving guns?

That depends almost entirely on how close the relationship is between group membership and criminal activity. MS-13 gang members? Good case! Right-handed people? No case at all.

Well, yeah, left handers are actually more criminally inclined, there's just less of them.

The ejection port sending hot brass down their shirts drives lefties to horrible extremes.

Not if that group is a protected class a la Civil Rights Act. I don’t believe that covers political parties, but we also have the 1A.

Felons are understandably SOL by longstanding precedent.

No there is not because "crime" is a purely social construct.

What about majority of murders?

Well murder being defined as criminal homicide, it also can't really exist as a category without the law.

At the end of the day, unless you're willing to bite the bullet of some moralism, it's all about who has the power to define the bound of acceptable behavior, in this case who can legitimately be killed and who can't.

This is the most solid argument that Foucault has ever produced in my opinion. I don't believe it's true because I believe in some transcendental standard of morality that delineates the legitimacy of homicide based on natural law (namely the sanctity of person and property against unilateral aggression), but without that it's about who's holding the gun and nothing else.

Without natural law, killing kulaks is not murder.

That's what they all say right before they get shot in the face.

Indeed it is.

...and that is why it's always the democrats who are pushing to disarm the populace.

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