site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   31395 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 30, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As with many, many, other things the 'American' man in question standing around the little stool with a bottle of liquor is not the same 'American' man who fought the war against King George.

Italians and Irish catholics drunkenly beating their suffragette wives is not why my WASPy ancestors fought the revolutionary war

You know suffragettes were disproportionately wasps and their descendants(namely Mormons), right? The 19th amendment is one of those things where the Catholic ‘told you so’ meme applies.

The problem with the 19th amendment isn't women, it's democracy. The same as the 17th amendment, and the 24th amendment, and the 26th amendment.

We need fewer voters, not more voters. We need a republic, not a democracy.

And how do you decide who those fewer voters should be?

I’ll bite the bullet- male heads of property owning households with children, and widows of the same, should be allowed to vote, assuming no evidence of treachery, criminality, or immorality.

male heads of property owning households with children

That would result in a government which undervalues the well-being of

  • wives
  • households of very limited means
  • people without children

where their interests conflict with those of well-off fathers.

Considering this acceptable under-mines one's standing to object to FOO attempting to reserve the vote to FOO, and steering the government to ignore the interests of BAR where they conflict with those of FOO.

The political process then becomes a game of musical-chairs where every group tries to grab the government before their enemies do.

Whichever groups end up losing this conflict then have less incentive, and reason, to regard the government as legitimate; and being unable to influence it peaceably, are more likely to attempt change through violence.

I would prefer that political violence be avoided.

I can therefore conclude that it would be wise to extend the vote to single people, wives, non-child-bearing husbands, and fathers without property.

assuming no evidence of treachery, criminality, or immorality

And how long would it take before 'supporting policies I don't like' became 'evidence of immorality'?

I'm comfortable biting the bullet and saying that people like DINKs, single people, and the very poor deserve to have their interests less represented in society.

But for your other objection- historically male heads of households have valued the well-being of other members of their households above those of other male heads of household, to the extent that different members of the same household can have their wellbeing clearly separated.

I'm comfortable biting the bullet and saying that people like DINKs, single people, and the very poor deserve to have their interests less represented in society.

And where will you stand when someone says that you, your wife, and your children deserve to have their interests less represented in society than those of another man, his wife, and his children?

But for your other objection- historically male heads of households have valued the well-being of other members of their households above those of other male heads of household, to the extent that different members of the same household can have their wellbeing clearly separated.

Counter-example: domestic-abuse laws.

This argument is just the diversity boogeyman in a different form. I.e. how can Congress pass laws that are good for all Americans when it's full of white men?

Now, obviously hydroacetylene's suggestion wouldn't be practical to suggest in a modern Western country (even though it's how the US system was originally designed). But your objection that it leads to political violence is belied by the levels of political violence we have today.

The point of limiting the vote to a cohort like the suggested one is to make sure all those voting are people of good character, invested in their community, and care about people other than themselves (i.e. their family). The idea that male heads of households would vote against the interests of their wives is pretty cynical, for instance, and in the type of society that is being suggested here I would expect these voters to be more concerned with the well-being of their whole family than, say, current voters who are often single-voter issues on purely self-interested things that affect them, like student loan forgiveness or even abortion. It also incentivizes people to get married, have children, and buy a house, all things that we want. For these reasons it seems like a pro-social and useful suggestion, and I think your objections to it are surface level and apply even more strongly to the current system.

how can Congress pass laws that are good for all Americans when it's full of white men?

They can do so perfectly well when the interests of white men align with those of women and minorities; it is when they diverge that there is an issue.

Can an all-white Congress be trusted to forgo a bill that would result in +0.001 util/white person and -10,000 utils/black person?

point of limiting the vote to a cohort like the suggested one is to make sure all those voting are people of good character

There are many, many married fathers of bad character; forgiving indeed is the one who would not include at least one U. S. President in that category. There are also many women, single men, and childless husbands of far better character than the aforementioned married fathers.

The idea that male heads of households would vote against the interests of their wives is pretty cynical

Male heads of households would vote against the interests of their wives, when those interests are at cross purposes to their own. A man who wishes to be allowed to legally beat his wife if she dis-pleases him in the slightest way is unlikely to vote for a candidate promising a crack-down on spousal abuse, even though it would be to his wife's benefit.

in the type of society that is being suggested here I would expect these voters to be more concerned with the well-being of their whole family

Expect in one hand, [excrete] in the other, and see which one fills up first.

There are many, many ways to do that. You could restrict it to people who pay the poll tax, or to those who own property, or those who are married with children, or only people who have been in the country for twenty-one years, or only people who have been resident of the state for twenty-one years, or...or...or... You can read history and come up with your own way, but limiting who is allowed to vote is a normal suggestion and has been implemented in some form everywhere voting occurs.

Frankly I'd settle for paying people not to vote, as anyone who would rather have $100 than cast a vote shouldn't be voting anyway.

In my ideal world, I'd be the marginal voter excluded, so the only people allowed to vote are those better than me, and nobody worse than me has the privilege.

Would you like to suggest a way, or were you thinking I wouldn't bite the bullet? Do you care about the differences, or are you just expressing disdain?

There are many, many ways to do that. You could restrict it to people who pay the poll tax, or to those who own property, or those who are married with children, or only people who have been in the country for twenty-one years, or only people who have been resident of the state for twenty-one years, or...or...or... You can read history and come up with your own way, but limiting who is allowed to vote is a normal suggestion and has been implemented in some form everywhere voting occurs.

And whichever criterion you choose, wherever the interests of that group differ from its complement, the elected officials will then be incentivised to discount the latter in favour of the former.

This is not, to put it delicately, a recipe for a peaceful society.

Frankly I'd settle for paying people not to vote, as anyone who would rather have $100 than cast a vote shouldn't be voting anyway.

This runs up against the diminishing marginal utility of money. $100 means a lot more to someone of lesser means than it does to a billionaire.

Would you like to suggest a way, or were you thinking I wouldn't bite the bullet? Do you care about the differences, or are you just expressing disdain?

It was more of a Socratic method question; however, one could select a number of residents at random and pay them enough that they could devote themselves full-time to political issues....

Well sure, but blaming Irish immigrants for that is just dumb- expanding ballot access was a WASP project.

Angloids had major problems with alcoholism too, one need only look up the gin craze of the 18th century to find out.

I was not aware pre-prohibition era Italians were notorious for drunken wife beating

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