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.

I thought you were proposing this as some sort of not-very-clever Swiftian satire, but reading your posts below, apparently you believe this is a serious and reasonable proposal.

First, not all Democrats are anti-gun.

Second, those who are mostly don't want an absolute prohibition on firearms ownership.

But let's take your straw man at face value: all the people who want guns to be banned are banned from owning guns. Of course they would not agree to this, and the reason isn't because they "don't really believe that banning guns is just and fair." It's because their reason for wanting guns banned is that they believe guns cause violence and banning guns will reduce violence. Obviously banning only a small segment of the population (and mostly people who neither own guns nor commit violence) will not have this effect.

It's a dumb proposal even without bringing up "unfairness" (which, obviously, it would be, because also no one would accept a law like this that applies only on the basis of your registered political party).

Your proposition that somehow this will cause them to "face the consequences/realities of their own proposals" is specious.

Let's turn it around: "Republicans say they want abortion banned. Therefore, we will hereby ban abortion, but only for registered members of the Republican Party. Clearly, this will have the desired effect of reducing abortions, and it's what they say they want. Sound fair?"

You can't make any argument for why that's a stupid idea that doesn't also apply to yours.

I mean, I genuinely believe it is likely to have an impact on Gun crime since most of said crime occurs in cities that Democrats govern, anyway.

First, not all Democrats are anti-gun.

Then they can simply reject their party affiliation and maintain their rights.

Easy. They're not going to be inconvenienced in the least if they care about gun rights.

Second, those who are mostly don't want an absolute prohibition on firearms ownership.

I don't care what their proposal is, I'll accept any sort of gun control policy if it applies to registered Democrats only.

Find me one THEY will accept on those terms. Call it a 'compromise' position, which is how they always describe their proposals.

"Republicans say they want abortion banned. Therefore, we will hereby ban abortion, but only for registered members of the Republican Party. Clearly, this will have the desired effect of reducing abortions, and it's what they say they want. Sound fair?"

...Yes? That sounds absolutely like a step in the right direction that they would accept?

Have you even tried asking the question to the pro-life brigade? That wouldn't stop them pushing for more but its surely something they'd agree to!

Like, this is the question of "Okay, we'll ban abortion, BUT, we'll require the males to be held financially accountable for their children" question. Conservatives would hit that button so fast it'd make your head spin.

I mean, I genuinely believe it is likely to have an impact on Gun crime since most of said crime occurs in cities that Democrats govern, anyway.

So would going full Orwell. I too can imagine many modest proposals that would reduce gun crimes. Am I supposed to take your proposal seriously but not literally, or literally but not seriously?

...Yes? That sounds absolutely like a step in the right direction that they would accept?

Seriously? You actually believe Republicans would sign off on "Abortion is banned only for Republicans"?

Have you even tried asking the question to the pro-life brigade? That wouldn't stop them pushing for more but its surely something they'd agree to!

Well, no, I haven't, because it would never occur to me to propose such a non-starter of an idea, but I welcome the input of our pro-lifers here as to whether they would regard this as something they would buy into. It sounds like taking the old pro-choice line "If you're against abortion, don't have one, simple" literally.

I suppose some people might say "Sure" with the understanding that they expect it to lead to an abortion ban for everyone. I doubt very much anyone would agree to it if they know it will only ever be applied to those who are against it in the first place.

So would your proposed "Gun ban for Democrats only" be fine with you if you know that those who agree with it are going to use it as a first step in banning guns for everyone?

More generally, "people who propose laws get those laws applied to themselves and themselves only" is just not how things work.

Like, this is the question of "Okay, we'll ban abortion, BUT, we'll require the males to be held financially accountable for their children" question. Conservatives would hit that button so fast it'd make your head spin.

Sure, but that's not the same proposition at all, because both conditions would be favorable from their point of view. "Enforce a more conservative policy on men and women? Yes please!"

Well, no, I haven't, because it would never occur to me to propose such a non-starter of an idea, but I welcome the input of our pro-lifers here as to whether they would regard this as something they would buy into. It sounds like taking the old pro-choice line "If you're against abortion, don't have one, simple" literally.

Anti-abortion and pro-gun control here; would happily sign on to both banning abortion and banning guns for the half of the population that wants those respective bans more (assuming broader restrictions were not already in place). It's a classic "half a loaf". Take what you can get.

Well, no, I haven't, because it would never occur to me to propose such a non-starter of an idea, but I welcome the input of our pro-lifers here as to whether they would regard this as something they would buy into.

I would take that deal. I just asked my wife, and aside from some initial "what's the point", she settled quickly on "well, it's less abortions, so sure."

I suppose some people might say "Sure" with the understanding that they expect it to lead to an abortion ban for everyone.

That would be exactly why I would support it. It would be a significant expansion of abortion restrictions, and I believe expanding abortion restrictions is a good thing. It would also force the issue with Republicans who aren't actually on board; I could be persuaded that forcing the issue in this way would be tactically unsound, but I'm generally skeptical that compromise is really the correct avenue.

I would imagine the same logic would apply to guns.

So would your proposed "Gun ban for Democrats only" be fine with you if you know that those who agree with it are going to use it as a first step in banning guns for everyone?

Or a first step toward durable federalism, where we admit that Democratic rights and Republican rights can't be reconciled, and we should in fact have different legal regimes for different populations.

Or a first step toward durable federalism, where we admit that Democratic rights and Republican rights can't be reconciled, and we should in fact have different legal regimes for different populations

It's called rum millet.

rum millet

What a fascinating bit of history I wasn't aware of!

The goal of abortion is reducing infanticide and increasing your demographics, which is furthered (arguably even to your benefit, if you care about your demographics and your infants) with a partial abortion ban on you.

The goal of gun control is equitable disarmament (or, maximally uncharitably, to disproportionately disarm your enemies), and partial disarmament goes directly against both.

Prolifers are well aware that banning abortion is not really increasing our demographics; factually it’s reducing our fertility advantage.

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