site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   27783 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 2025

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 doubt there's going to be much of a legal battle. Laurence Tribe believes it's the law of the land, but Laurence Tribe believes a lot of stupid things - the more likely outcome is that the first plaintiffs who try to enforce it inevitably get slapped down by the courts, and this fades away to nothing.

Maybe we'll get a quick case clarifying the legal question of whether states can legally revoke ratification, and whether Congress is legally allowed to impose ratification deadlines. I think it would be sensible for the Supreme Court to rule that states can revoke ratification before an amendment has been passed (but not after), and that Congress can impose deadlines for ratification.

But it's kind of a pointless battle anyways, isn't it? Under current case law the 14th and 19th amendment already do most of what the ERA would do, and despite people like Hananiah pushing for it, I seriously doubt the majority of Federal statutes that prevent discrimination against women are going anywhere. And even if they did disappear, 23 states already have state constitutional provisions protecting the equality of men and women under law.

Technically the Archivist of the United States has the final, non-reviewable, say on validity of amendments, and she came forward last December and said it wasn't valid.

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2025/nr25-004

This is more an attempt to acclimate the public to a future Archivist declaring it valid. It's interesting because the Archivist traditionally avoids doing anything controversial. There would be a whole lot of legitimacy questions if it happened.

It's the courts that have the final say, and the courts have said it's not valid without further Congressional action, which is why the Archivist said she can't legally publish the amendment. I imagine that if she tried publishing it herself, the ensuing litigation would just end in the courts referring to their prior decisions and striking down her action.

Technically the Archivist of the United States has the final, non-reviewable, say on validity of amendments

Certainly not; if the Supreme Court says one thing and the Archivist says another, the Supreme Court is going to get its way.

I agree that this is the most likely first-order outcome. It is also true that you miss a hundred percent of the shots you don't take. What's the cost of ammunition?

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