site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10473 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

I dunno man, are there people here willing to argue that? Maybe a couple.

I've not been able to post much here the last month or so, but I've made the argument as a steelman in other venues, and while I'd prefer some more enlightened form of deescalation on these matters combined with a moderately-embarrassing airing-of-deeds, there's reason that many of those options are either not available (eg, commuting sentences not finalized gets complicated) or not trusted to be available (eg, Biden absolutely wouldn't and probably shouldn't trust Trump to do a pardon exchange).

EDIT : hopefully fixed link.

Is that supposed to go straight to Cooke's Twitter profile? Not logged in ATM, so can't see if his most recent post is an exchange with you or something.

Nope. Sorry, correct link should be this. In case it's not visible for those not logged in:

I think there's a steelman that there's a bunch of widely distributed risks when prosecution of close family of presidents starts being a common thing, in the same way that prosecutions of Presidents would. If we broke down the fence over malum in se conduct, it'd be one thing. But as illegal as many of Hunter and Trump's behaviors may have been, afaict we're looking at malum prohibitum.

When you start opening up potential where the laws and moral get unclear, or enforcement hard, you don't just (or primarily) Get The Bad People. The alternative isn't just these two going to jail; it's opening up a repeat of Ted Stevens every four years, for the highest office in the land.((And, as Trump has demonstrated, sometimes with the opposite effect.))

I think there's some weaknesses even to this steelman: the obvious 'is no one above the law' question, differing feels on inherently immoral, why some offices fall under it and others don't, whether it delays or even discourages the reform that still hasn't happened post-Stevens. But from a 'maybe we don't want to break all these really important institutions' position (albeit as someone who maybe does), there's a not-crazy arg that this cordons off a really bad path.

Of course, even if that covers the breadth, it leaves the 'why pardon instead of commute' problem, especially since Hunter specifically would likely benefit from some time in a halfway house or mandatory detox.

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