site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   21415 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 23, 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.

This started as a reply to @monoamine's comment here but I'm posting here for greater visibility.

I do not think that this is "Based". To be "Based" is to have a base, be grounded, firmly planted, to reject the world of wishy-washy postmodernist bullshit (deconstructionism, moral relativism, etc...) in favor of the hard and the fast. That is unless you're going for the alternate etymology where "based" is a reference to freebasing and you really meant to say "When the crackhead regime takes over..." which tbh also fits.

Its a common error amongst wishy-washy postmodernist to conflate "rejects postmodernism" with "retarded and anti-social" and thus there is an inclination to label any anti-social idea as "based". Our justice system was designed as an adversarial system for a reason. Don't go looking to tear that fence down before you demonstrate that you understand why it was built.

I'm reminded, once more, of De Maistre- to be counter-revolutionary is not to be in support of an opposing revolution, but to be opposed to the revolution.

I mean, yes, progressive attitudes towards the rights of the accused are retarded and antisocial. But the reaction to them has a very real question of 'based in what?', which is a real way of asking 'are we sure this isn't even more retarded and antisocial?'

The right should seek to build off of what has worked before. We should put a son upon his father's land, not burn the shire in the hopes of building something new.

Agreed on all points.

But I’m appealing to a model of justice that has recurred over and over throughout history. I’ve referenced England’s Bloody Code before. Whatever else you want to say about it, it did a phenomenal job of reducing crime. The inquisitorial system is very lindy, even if not in a specifically American context. And someone like Nayib Bukele (see my flair) is demonstrating that the type of justice I’m advocating can work in a 21st-century context.

I’ve referenced England’s Bloody Code before. Whatever else you want to say about it, it did a phenomenal job of reducing crime

We're talking about the system famous for pickpockets working the crowd of the hanging of a pickpocket, right?

The inquisitorial system is very lindy, even if not in a specifically American context.

Lindy, yes, but lindy doesn't mean "good".

We're talking about the system famous for pickpockets working the crowd of the hanging of a pickpocket, right?

This sounds bad until you compare it with how much worse levels of criminality were in England before this. Banditry basically disappeared in the country by the end of this period.

Lindy, yes, but lindy doesn't mean "good".

No doubt! I’m anything but a doctrinaire conservative. There’s plenty of lindy practices and beliefs I’d be happy to consign to the dustbin of history. I was responding, though, to a post which accused me of conjuring fanciful hypotheticals rather than building on existing time-tested practices that worked. I submit that my ideal model of justice is very much built on proven practices from the past.

I think this is the first time I’ve seen someone accuse Hoff of postmodernism. Or of being wishy-washy, for that matter.

FWIW the comment started as a reply to someone else but still...

There seems to be this perception amonst rationalists that the "based" option is by definition the most aggressively retarded and anti-social one and that is what I am trying to push back against as futile as it may be.

I mean this is the same guy who believes that John Wilkes Booth was a progressive, so I think he might be suffering from a serious case of whatever Hlynka suffered from, which renders the sufferer unable to recognize distinctions between the various alternatives to American-style Christian conservatism.

I mean this is the same guy who believes that John Wilkes Booth was a progressive

No, I called him a "democrat" though to be fair those terms are becoming increasingly interchangeable.

And then in this comment you explicitly said that you were suggesting that he was also a left-winger. I don’t know how much more clear you could have been in this conversation.

Again, i called him a leftist and a democrat. You're drawing your own associations

What do you think is the difference between a leftist and a progressive?

I think the thing that makes a progressive "progressive" is an axiomatic belief in "Progress". Ie a belief that current year is special and need not be beholden to the rules and realities of prior years.

I think that while not all leftists are progressive, almost all progressives are leftists. There are conversations and compromises that a sincere conservative can have with a sincere leftist that cant be had with a sincere progressive and that is the benefit to drawing the distinction.

Once upon a time there was a progressive faction in both the Republican and Democratic parties just as there was an explicitly Christian/Social conservative faction in both parties but as the Democrats became more explicitly progressive the realities of a two-party system encouraged the Republicans to become more explicitly conservative to pick up newly alienated conservative democrats.

And what do you think any of that has to do with John Wilkes Booth?

More comments

Our justice system was designed as an adversarial system for a reason. Don't go looking to tear that fence down before you demonstrate that you understand why it was built.

I already explained in another comment that I believe the adversarial design of the American justice system made sense in an era where it was far more difficult to ascertain guilt. No video, no photography, no DNA, not even things like fingerprinting. Unless the police literally caught somebody in the act, they had to rely almost entirely on witness testimony and extremely rudimentary investigative techniques. Under such constraints, it’s very understandable to impose an adversarial model, to balance against the natural unreliability and possible ulterior motives of witnesses.

In the 21st century, it is incomparably easier to ascertain guilt based on far more solid evidence. My contention is that this obviates the need for adversarial justice in the case of most crimes.

Now, there are of course types of crime where the inquisitorial model is still inappropriate. The kangaroo courts that sprung up on college campuses to adjudicate rape accusations are a great example. Rape, at least of the “date rape” variety rather than the “prowler pouncing out of the bushes” variety, is inherently far harder to assess because the physical evidence nearly always accommodates multiple competing explanations. The physical evidence establishes that two people had sex, but rarely indicates whether that sex was consensual in the moment or not. In that scenario, adversarial justice is preferable. For a robbery caught on camera, or a murder where the killer’s fingerprints are on the knife and his DNA is on the scene? What is there to argue about? Why is a defense attorney necessary? What do we gain by pretending that going through the (expensive, time-consuming) motions is valuable?

What is there to argue about? Why is a defense attorney necessary? What do we gain by pretending that going through the (expensive, time-consuming) motions is valuable?

How do we determine which among every criminal charge meets the bar for sufficient evidence not to have to undertake a formal adversarial trial? Should every charge have a pre-trial in which it is decided which kind of trial is required? Who would have the final say in such a pre-trial? Would it itself be adversarial?

For a robbery caught on camera, or a murder where the killer’s fingerprints are on the knife and his DNA is on the scene? What is there to argue about? Why is a defense attorney necessary? What do we gain by pretending that going through the (expensive, time-consuming) motions is valuable?

The purpose of a defense attorney is not to get the accused acquitted at all costs. Their purpose is to help the accused navigate an extremely stressful environment. That can include, for example, encouraging the accused to take a plea deal in the case of overwhelming evidence. There's a reason the vast majority of cases do not end up in trial.

I believe the adversarial design of the American justice system made sense in an era where it was far more difficult to ascertain guilt. No video, no photography, no DNA...

We live in a world where allegedly hard evidence like audio and video is becoming increasingly trivial to fake and DNA evidence remains only as trustworthy as the Lab.

I dont think the ulterior motivations nor the inherent unreliability of the human animal has changed at all.

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