site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36582 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

My preference would be that almost everyone posts some sort of bond, scaling with mostly seriousness of the charges.

Pretrial detention should be for those who don't post a bond, or those whose charges are so serious or frequent they represent a danger to the public (is if there's a greater than 10% chance someone commits another crime while on bond, I'd prefer they be held until their trial).

How does posting bond make someone less dangerous? I know the putative argument is that people are encouraged to be on good behavior on pain of forfeiting their bond, but I haven't seen good evidence this actually works. Bail companies exist and they can front the full amount in exchange for paying 10%, and if you have Fuck You levels of money you can just post bond and jet set to the Philippines or whatever. For those who can't afford it, do you have any concerns about making liberty conditional on wealth?

For those who can't afford it, do you have any concerns about making liberty conditional on wealth?

I would if I thought that was what is actually happening with bail. Instead I think it represents community trust and contributions in all but the most extreme cases (failsons being an example).

Those who are likely to reoffend should be held in pretrial detention without the ability to post a bond, for the protection of the citizens. The first goal of pretrial detention should be to prevent as many cases like Darrel Brooks, who was arrested and charged and released actively awaiting two trials and then went on to commit 76 more crimes including 6 murders, as posssible.

I'm all for surrending passports being part of the bond, and scailing bond requirements with wealth as a secondary factor that can increase bonds. But I think the primary factor should be the seriousness of the charges. No one charged with any felony should be released without posting a bond of some sort, certainly not federal arson (it carrying a 5 year minimum sentence and I believe it should bring a fairly substantial bond).

For those who can't afford it, do you have any concerns about making liberty conditional on wealth?

Yes, but I'd take making liberty conditional on wealth over making it conditional on the court's subjective opinion of how much of a risk I am which is almost certainly going to be contaminated by assumptions about my immutable characteristics. If it is conditional on wealth, I can at least try to acquire wealth to mitigate those concerns. What do I do to mitigate "Your demographic is more risky, tough luck."?

You can't acquire wealth from jail

I can acquire it before I am accused of a crime however. I can also ask others to raise money on my behalf. Both of these are at least theoretically possible for everyone. I agree it is far from the ideal, but it is in my mind strictly superior to simply leaving it up to the court's subjective beliefs.

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