site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   32429 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's a simple solution here that doesn't need to destroy Maritime law, you put everyone that immigrated into a country through this method into camps until they are fit to be shipped out or legally apply, and make the camps only slightly better than prison.

Anyone would take internment over drowning, but you wouldn't sail miles just to get interned and ultimately shipped back.

But then you run into the institutions that think incarceration of aliens which they are free to leave at any moment is a violation of their human rights for some reason.

I would think the ECHR much more relevant in this case. But yes this is quite exactly what prevents any reasonable scheme to prevent this situation.

Well, the simple solution is to repudiate those treaties.

I know it's part of the West's psychology to say "never again" about anything to do with WW2 (including the issue of people not wanting Jewish refugees) but this situation is unsustainable.

This is not a problem of having no solutions, it's a problem of will

And, frankly, dissimilar to the original situation. Massive difference between long-term - often assimilated- Jewish minorities in European nations being deported and no European doing anything and being on the hook for any unfortunate victim of racism, sexism, homophobia (as defined by the West - i.e. most of the world would be victimizing people on these grounds) or even climate change and other long-term baked in economic and material considerations.

Can Italy repudiate those treaties ?

If the constition isn't a suicide pact, neither are treaties which depend on it for validity. A treaty which abolishes the right of a state to prevent entry of armed, hostile foreigners, abolishes the state itself.

The first link is paywalled, but the second story quite clearly is about a state/states preventing entry, or at least doing their best to prevent so. There's no indication any treaty prevents this, and the Spanish (left-wing) prime minister says as much that they're going to prevent migrants from doing that. I'm not sure how it is relevant for this case, then?

The first link is paywalled

This, or this.

prevent migrants from doing that

I was wrong. It seems ECHR had given their blessing to treat a storming mob, differently than an orderly queue.

Alternatively, you can let them apply and then ship them back to Libya until their application has been processed(and most likely denied).

It's not like Libya is in any state to prevent that.

I think a sufficiently motivated prosecutor could probably make out a case that SOS Humanity are criminally conspiring with human traffickers to capsize ships and put migrants' lives in danger. Seems like an unavoidable conclusion in light of their MO that whatever maritime law compels a right of safe harbor under duress has been incorporated into SOS Humanity's standard operating procedures and they are complicit in creating those circumstances of duress.

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