site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   35690 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 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.

Democrats let out actual leftist terrorists like Weather Underground and FALN Puerto Rican separatists (responsible for 130 bombings). Turnabout is fair play.

It’s especially relevant given that some of those Puerto Rican separatists stormed the congressional chambers and shot several congressmen

Biden (and other Democrat presidential) pardons of leftist activists wasn’t the precipitating cause of the J6 pardons. The two primary complaints about the J6 prosecutions were 1) the partisan zeal combined with the DC venue meant that an impartial jury of ones peers was not in the offing, and 2) that J6 was being used as an info Op as part of the “Get Trump at all costs” campaign from 2021-2024, and MAGA grannies were collateral damage.

Turnabout is fair play.

Er, what? Two wrongs make a right, according to you?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do sometimes cancel each other out.

Two wrongs make a right, according to you?

No, I am questioning the "two wrongs" part.

"Yes, I know they keep firing on our position. But that doesn't make it right to shoot people. I'm taking a principled stance against using weapons on people."

Or even "I know they keep firing on your position. But from my position, well safe and far away, that doesn't make it right for you to shoot people."

"Think about how upset being shot at makes you. Isn't it hypocritical of you to want to shoot back?"

As an aside, I hate how hypocrisy is now the cardinal and only sin in certain discourse. Since, as the theory goes, all morality is subjective, it leaves one who swallows the subjective-pill unable to point out how someone else's culture, values, or religion are evil and wrong. However, it's always possible to point out hypocrisy since virtually everyone falls short of their professed values in some way or the other. It is the universal argument. "No I don't believe in your backwards, primitive, parochial morality but then again you don't perfectly live up to the virtues you profess so really neither do you nyah nyah nyah." But there are worse things than being a hypocrite, namely: not being a hypocrite because you have no virtues to fall short of. There are only two types of non-hypocritical people: saints and the amoral, and there are many more of the latter than the former.

As an aside, I hate how hypocrisy is now the cardinal and only sin in certain discourse.

Arguments over hypocrisy are the last stop before total values incoherence. Previously, we would have argued over the implementation of shared values, but those values are no longer shared in any meaningful sense. Having accepted that there is no meaningful overlap of shared values, we appeal to the meta of consistency. If consistency fails, there's not really anything left to talk about.

There's literally centuries - millennia actually - of discourse over morality and what it is and should be. But first you do need to accept that morality exists.

There's only nothing left to talk about if both sides believe values are merely subjective and that, therefore, no values can be more correct than any other in any absolute sense. Even totally incoherent contradictory values aren't wrong - after all, thinking that someone's beliefs shouldn't contradict themselves is itself just another merely subjective value judgment.

There's only nothing left to talk about if both sides believe values are merely subjective and that, therefore, no values can be more correct than any other in any absolute sense.

I observe a set of people who share my values, and a set of people who do not share my values.

When dealing with the set of people who share my values, appeal to those values we share is a viable method of conflict resolution; we agree on ends, and are only arguing about means.

When dealing with the set of people who do not share my values, I can't appeal to my values because they don't share them, and so such an appeal would be meaningless, and I usually have no interest in appealing to their values, because I don't share them and they don't generally support the argument I'm making.

Once I recognize that a set of people doesn't share my values, what is there to do? Even if I believe my values are objectively correct, I have no way of forcing this set of people to agree. Any further discussion depends on a retreat to subjectivity to even be possible. If I'm not willing to consider that my values might be wrong, why should I expect them to do so?

Once I recognize that a set of people doesn't share my values, what is there to do?

Search for shared values and go from there.

More comments

You'll have to unfilter him

thanks, approved the rest of the filtered posts too while I was at it.

Sometimes, yeah. We tacitly acknowledge this with all punitive justice - we may not be able to make a right, but the best we can do is visible punishment of transgressors.

Additionally tit-for-tat is a better game theoretical strategy than cooperating with a defectbot.

In any case, the situation can't be addressed with cliches, at least not adequately. The response like what @satanistgoblin is expressing above is largely about the complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy of people that have excused all manor of political terrorism in the past (including the recent past, when BLM rioters killed dozens and destroyed billions in property) suddenly deciding that a riot that got out of hand requires tracking down everyone present and charging them under novel interpretations of statute that had never previously occurred to anyone.

We tacitly acknowledge this with all punitive justice - we may not be able to make a right, but the best we can do is visible punishment of transgressors.

I don't know that visible punishment as its own end is why we have punitive justice. Most proponents will cite things like deterence, or prevention (i.e. keeping dangerous people in jail), or in more leftist societies rehabilitation. The point being the result: reduction of crime, a safer society. Punitive justice seems like an archaic tool that still has contemporary benefits, similar to old rules about the sabbath that gave people community, or old rules about what to avoid eating to prevent disease.

The punitive aspect is, in part, that we have that as a means available (familiar, common sensible, and traditional). But contemporary societies realized to varying degrees that punishing conditions don't help in themself. Hence why torture isn't allowed, or prison conditions aren't totally uncomfortable (in other countries at least).

As someone who isn't American, it's sad to see that American society is unable to come to a point of real discussion about what is better for the function of their country, and instead resorts to arguments about what the other side has done. It seems to me that both sides are unhappy with the justice system and how it can be abused to treat people unfairly. That seems to be a problem beyond either side, but it is highlighted when either side can cherry pick examples.

From an outside perspective, I am deeply concerned that Trump will do nothing to help the structural issues. But to be fair, I don't think the Democrats had any better chance.

it's sad to see that American society is unable to come to a point of real discussion about what is better for the function of their country,

The issue is that both sides do already have at least low-resolution ideas of what we can do to improve said function, we just can't agree on which ones to implement.

That may have been a problem in the past. I haven't seen good faith discussion between tribal lines in a hot minute. It seems to me that it is often less about disagreeing about the solution, and disagreeing about framing altogether, e.g. the left framing abortion as a women's rights and bodily autonomy issue, the right framing abortion as a religious and ethical issue. Part of this is political posturing (saying that murdering babies is fine isn't a popular move), but part of it, to me, is missing the fundamental reason for government and politics (what makes for a more successful/stable/flourishing/insert adjective society?)

In the abortion example, the cold calculation is something like looking at the impact on the economy, birth rates, education, and many creative ways of gaugibg the effect. Usually the answer to whether something is a good idea in hat sense is contextual and not an absolutist stance (compare a country with a popukation that is too large to support, versus one that cannot replenish its population).

In the abortion example, the cold calculation is something like looking at the impact on the economy, birth rates, education, and many creative ways of gaugibg the effect. Usually the answer to whether something is a good idea in hat sense is contextual and not an absolutist stance (compare a country with a popukation that is too large to support, versus one that cannot replenish its population).

This frame for abortion can only make sense from a pro-choice framework. The Pro-life framework obviously brooks no compromise. It'd be like asking for a pro/con breakdown on allowing violent nonconsensual rape and taking seriously the boons to the economy and fertility rate. This, and many problems just actually grounds out in values differences which you can't really do utility calculous on because you have different utility functions.

abortion example, the cold calculation is something like looking at the impact on the economy, birth rates, education

Aren't the majority of abortions in the USA to underclass women? Ye's claim there were more black babies aborted than born in NYC.

I've not heard an economic argument from the pro-abortion tribe.

I've not heard an economic argument from the pro-abortion tribe.

I don't think I've heard one from either side, but that's the point. The moral ground for either side is imovable and never addresses the other point.

I respect that many place importance on the morality of policy and laws on both the left and right, and I think that deontological rules are an important boundary for unchecked utilitarian thinking (which can go off the rails). But from my perspective, utilitarian thinking is mostly absent these days, in favour of emotional arguments that do not take into consideration the full range practical issues. Everyone seems very concerned about how wrong the other guy is, but not so interested in looking at why both sides are dreadfully unhappy with things. This is exacerbated by hot button issues like trans people, who are a minority minority, when there are huge day-to-day economic changes in the past 10 years.

I wish the government was more concerned with being a transparent public service that deals with things the private market tends to bungle, rather than invested in tit for tat status quo or promoting an idealistic agenda. To me this seems worse in the USA than my country, but it is present here too. And I don't think one side is better than the other in that regard, when so many of the messages are "the other guy did it first". Hold politicians accountable to being productive rather than performing.

Many of the arguments we get from motivated reasoning are poor. Often because they've been stitched together to carefully avoid falling outside the overton window or some electric thrid rail of their own tribe.

I would like to see the pro-abortion tribe argue for the economic benefits of limiting underclass reproduction. Making abortion more available to women whose children would be disruptive poor performers in school and be on the school to prison pipeline would likely be a net good. Arguing for it begins to look too eugenicist. The lefty pro-abortion tribe also tends to include people from racial constituencies that the argument would advocate for aborting.

I find it a better argument than whatever the current women's rights bodily autonomy argument is but I don't think they'd get the blue haired women out shouting that aborting black and brown babies is good for the country.

Many of the individuals or tribes have a tenuous grasp on rationality, rational arguments don't take hold.

It's difficult to argue / logic someone out of a position they did not logic themselves into. So much is vibes and feels.

It's just all so tiresome.

Which is your country?

I don't know that visible punishment as its own end is why we have punitive justice.

As others have covered, I vigorously disagree. Others ends can be legitimate as well, but retribution is a good reason to do punitive justice. Retribution is a good and legitimate motivation and the inclination to suppress it is perverse. Mere restorative or preventative measures deny victims of crime their just outcome.

I guess we just disagree. In a hypothetical world where a caught criminal could instantly be turned into a productive, law abiding member of society without punishment, there is nothing but benefit in my view. (You can find ways to tweak that thought experiment in ways that make it closer to our messy reality, or make the result less clearcut; but as a over simplified thought experiment, it demonstrates how I feel very well).

To me, retribution seems like the heat that happens when you are trying to optimize for light.

Retribution is a way to discourage criminals from doing crime before they commit it, something that rehabilitation can't do (unless you have a way to do it to everyone preemptively).

There are mixed findings on punishment as a means of preventing crime, which matches my impression of most low level criminals (not a rational pro/con crowd) and understanding of why crime is committed (passion, opportunity). I don't think people commit crimes with the thought they will get caught and punished. Keeping criminals imprisoned seems to have a bigger effect on general crime (i.e. keeping them from doing it again because they are locked up).

I would guess the pre-emptive way to discourage crime is to make it so that crime doesn't pay. People are less likely to commit crimes when they have more to lose, can gauge the benefits and downsides and see the downsides are greater, or live comfortable and stable lives with loved ones in a safe community. Someone without a home, food, family or friends is way riskier than someone with any of those things.

My impression of criminals is that most of them, except those who are so mentally stunted they can't use a spoon, do have some idea of cause and effect. Ideally, the penal system makes the connection between cause and effect as short, simple and strong as possible, enough so that even those criminals who don't know what "tomorrow" is get it.

I'm not sure what solution you propose to making sure that crime doesn't pay that doesn't involve some sort of punishment, either.

More comments

Preventing crime is incapacitation + deterrence. Retribution is something else. It only prevents crime in as much as it makes the victim less willing to commit a crime to obtain satisfaction.

More comments

Accepting the terms of the thought experiment, I would still want retributive punishment to match the crime. Even if you could absolutely assure me that a man that robbed my home could be turned into just a perfectly decent man and that no punishment would impact others, I'd still want him caned. He deserves the suffering for inflicting it on others and to deny his victims that penance is an injustice. So, yeah, that's probably not a reconcilable value difference.

There is one more benefit of punitive justice: satisfaction for the victim. If you suffer, or people you care about suffer, it is satisfying to see the perpetrator of suffering to suffer in return. It’s a restitution of sorts.

You don’t see this argument being made though, even though this is extremely obvious and natural to most people (you can find millions of examples on X of people, both on left and right, full of glee from people being punished by criminal system), because it is obviously invalid in the enlightened liberal framework under which the discussion is happening.

Retribution is even one of the textbook reasons for criminal punishment: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. (Sometimes restitution is included, sometimes treated separately)

I don't personally consider that a benefit. In fact, I think it is a flaw because it causes people to act in ways that are less utilitarian/net good. I think the feeling of retribution and satisfaction is the primary driver for justice in a small society/community and serves the purpose of banding people together. But i do not believe it is a good in itself, and it should be tempered by rationality to discern the best course of action.

Like other intense emotions, it acts as an indicator for a desired change (the crime should never occur again, for example). But it does not indicate the exact course of action that should happen for the greatest benefit, especially on a social level.

In fact, I think it is a flaw because it causes people to act in ways that are less utilitarian/net good.

the exact course of action that should happen for the greatest benefit

Yeah, that’s the enlightened liberal framework I was talking about. Most people (fortunately) do not subscribe to utilitarianism, but nonetheless this is the dominant framework for the discussion, along with some specific assumptions, like granting substantially similar value to utils received by the perpetrator and the victim.

Is it the dominant framework for the discussion? I don't think I have ever spoken to someone about utilitarianism outside of rationalist ajacent circles.

To me the important question for government is, how do we get all of society's moving parts to work well together? How do we build a stable society for the future? It is, for better or worse, not a very warm approach (that's just how I tend to approach problems in general though). I acknowledge the human need to feel better about wrongs, but I think it can do more harm than good in a society of many. I also think preventing future crime is more important than punishment; it is preventable and crimes that have already happened are not. There is little evidence to show that punishment acts as a deterent for crime in our current society.

The other issue with something like retributive justice is that everyone's sense of what constitutes proper retribution is different. Retribution is not just a concern of conservative justice, it is the foundation for a lot of social justice movements. I take the same stance there. If the solution creates a bigger problem, it is not a solution (obviously this is a bit of a tautology). Or a step further: if retribution is a solution but there is a solution with better outcomes that does not involve retribution, the latter is better.

I don't think the desire for retribution isn't an important factor, just that retribution in itself isn't something to maximize as a value for me. I think the greatest pitfall of retribution in a large society (versus a small one, where it makes a lot more sense) is that the moving parts are no longer in sync. You can see this with public shamings that target relatively innocent people with great impunity and consequence. Or when two groups take opposing sides, and the desire for retribution is an infinite push back and forth.

I acknowledge the human need to feel better about wrongs, but I think it can do more harm than good in a society of many.

Harm to whom, exactly? Good to whom, exactly? Think about it: you're putting avoiding harm to the criminal above the well-being of his victim.

There is little evidence to show that punishment acts as a deterent for crime in our current society.

I see people say things like that, and, frankly, I find it mind-boggling.

First, this is so contrary to all human instincts and experience, that it would take some extraordinary evidence to compel me to take it seriously. Somehow, my children are deterred from committing "crime" against me by threat of punishment. I am deterred from committing crime by the threat of punishment -- for example, I feel extreme urge to smack the shit out of the street hobos that aggressively accost me, and the main reason I don't is because I know that the law will protect the menacing hobos and destroy me for it. I can come up with more examples like that.

Given that I, and many people I know are deterred by threat of punishment, the only way punishment could not act as a deterrent is if encouraged some people to commit crime. I don't believe this is plausible.

Second, this statement, even if it was true (which it is not), it is cleverly crafted to distract from the main argument for punishment as we practice it: it doesn't need to act as a deterrent in order to do the job you want it to do, which is to prevent future crime. Indeed, all it needs to do is to incapacitate the criminal, and it does so tremendously. Criminals who are in jail cannot victimize people outside of jail, and dead criminals are even less capable of victimizing anyone. This means that executing criminals is a good way to prevent crime, even if literally nobody is deterred from committing crime by the threat of capital punishment.

If the solution creates a bigger problem, (...)

I think you forgot to mention what problem is created by retribution. The only one I can think of is suffering of the criminal, which I see as a benefit, not a negative.

Or a step further: if retribution is a solution but there is a solution with better outcomes that does not involve retribution, the latter is better.

This is just a tautology: a better solution is better.

I think the greatest pitfall of retribution in a large society (versus a small one, where it makes a lot more sense) is that the moving parts are no longer in sync. You can see this with public shamings that target relatively innocent people with great impunity and consequence.

Few cases involve any publicity. In most cases, nobody cares about people close to victim and to the perpetrator. These form a small society.

More comments

Sometimes - for example, if someone hits you you can hit back and it counts as self defense.

It's not even a wrong because J6ers have been tortured with solitary confinement, charged using obscure civil war laws etc. Dems had their fun for 4 years, enough.

charged using obscure civil war laws etc.

"etc" here including charging protestors with Sarbanes-Oxley violations, a tactic which the courts ultimately limited but refused to strike down entirely.

Why not? I'd normally say that it's wrong for Ukrainians to launch rockets into Russian territory, but two wrongs do indeed make a right in some cases.

No it's not. Both sides mashing the defect button just makes everyone worse off.

Players that always cooperate are always worse off than players who do tit-for-tat. They only get equal if they play against each other since tit-for-tat players don't initiate defection.

The optimal way to act against people who always cooperate is preemptive nuclear strike. If you want anybody to not break the rules against you, they need to know you will do so against them, or they have nothing to lose.

What would you have Trump do instead?

I would have him not engage in the same detestable behavior Biden did. I don't fucking care if it means that the Democrats get to perpetuate bad things and get one up on Republicans, that is still preferable to the current state of affairs. If I get screwed over by only one side hitting defect, I'm better off than the status quo where I get screwed over by both sides.

  • -16

You understand why, from my perspective, I expect Trump to engage in these kinds of minor shenanigans to protect my tribe from democrats, even if they’re still shenanigans?

I do not, because he isn't protecting anything. Nobody has gained here, there are only losses.

  • -10

I mean, the J6 prisoners sure gained a lot.

The overcharged J6 protestors gained something. There's some measure of injustice being removed.

The people locked up for political reasons sure gained a lot.

This is just 'Don't fight back when your bully hits you' schoolyard reasoning writ large.

Yes, in a proper, preferable world, the bully wouldn't be hitting you. Or the school administration would do something swiftly and render further altercations impossible for either side.

Lacking any sort of higher recourse, often times the best option is to draw blood and continue to do so until they stop.

Have you read Romeo and Juliet? A schoolyard bully is mano e mano. A feud between groups is much messier, with innocents caught in the fallout.

Equating abuse of power to Shakespeare's criticism of idiotic teenage romance is not a comparison I would make.

I am making it as a simple comparison, because there is a difference between a man vs a man, and the political situation where it is group vs group. The obvious difference to me is that the most vocal, violent, and dissident points of view control the dialogue (and retaliatory actions from each side continue indefinitely) while other people, who are not involved, are caught in the crossfire. Hence the tragicomedy of Romeo and Juliet.

To the other comparisons to war, which are also group vs group: defecting in this sort of political dilemma, rather than war, serves to improve the standing of specific people within the society, and not the group as a whole. The difference should be that the detriment of your neighbours is a sign of the detriment to yourself. Even if you believe that defecting helps the party who does so (to me it seems like a defect-defect downward spiral, not a defect-cooperate situation where there is any benefit), it does not folow that a benefit to the party is a boon to the people of the country more generally. But as long as people are happy to watch politicians (pretend to) club each other over the head, happy that their outgroup experiences tribulations (which means everyone gets a turn), and happy that the other side is upset, I don't see how anything constructive can happen. The reality is that the politicians will drink Johnny Walker with one another after the show is over, but the general public will have no such consolation.

That works with bullies because it's a single person who you can hurt to get them to stop hurting you. In this case it's more like you're fighting a crowd of people, and to hurt them hurts yourself just as much. It's stupid to fight under those terms.

hurt them hurts yourself just as much

...no? No, it doesn't.

(I'm dimly reminded of a lynch mob trying to fall upon someone, only to have them pull out a gun and have said lynch mob descend into a horde of individuals. When was that...)

Again, we've tried the entire 'be a bigger man' tactics of politics. The past two to three decades have been a demonstration of the GOP 'taking the higher road' or 'loosing gracefully'.

While we're not out of those woods yet, there seems to be some light coming from behind the trees. And thank goodness for that.

I'm dimly reminded of a lynch mob trying to fall upon someone, only to have them pull out a gun and have said lynch mob descend into a horde of individuals. When was that...

A scene in huckleberry Finn.

This was more recent, and an example on one of the Firearm forums I frequent about how brandishing a firearm can be a complicated and thorny legal act.

But, yes, I suppose that applies as well.

The past two to three decades have been a demonstration of the GOP 'taking the higher road' or 'loosing gracefully'.

Are you joking? They absolutely have not been that. The GOP has been fighting every bit as dirty as their opponents. To paraphrase the old quote about Christianity, acting right hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried.

You can point to examples of the GOP doing things that qualify, I’m sure?

McCain and Romeny both were both broadly regarded as highly moral and above-the-board fellows able to rise above mere partisanship, at least outside of the period of their presidential campaigns at which point they were warmongering sexist racists. Afterwards they were once again respected statesmen, at least as long as they criticized Republicans.

More comments

Meh. I remember McCain's and Romney's lame-ass campaigns, and I'm surely not the only one.

Do you think most of his constituents want him to not engage in this behavior?

I couldn't begin to guess. I would certainly hope not, but given that people here are willing to make excuses for him it may be that most voters want him to.

Nobody's hit "defect" here but the Democrats. First by pardoning actual terrorists, then by inflicting harsh punishments on people who did many of the same sort of things that are commonplace and go unpunished or lightly punished in leftist protests.

It doesn't make everyone one worse off, it only makes those who were already defecting worse off.

No, it really does make everyone worse off. Not only have we now pardoned even more criminals who should be serving punishments for the things they did, Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.

Trump is perpetuating the cycle of badness and I refuse to accept bad reasoning like "oh well they do it too, turnabout is fair play" trying to justify it. I'm sick and tired of being caught in the crossfire between these people.

Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.

The BLM rioters were already de facto pardoned by Blue.

By their own definition, this is not an abuse of the process. Blue can always change their definition so it isn’t corrupt as fuck in the future.

But then again, I’m ok with the metaphorical battered housewife hitting back, even if that predictably results in an escalation where the batterer murders her. This is the ‘die on your feet/live on your knees’ question (or more generally, safety vs. dignity) all over again.

Since Red is the dignity party at the moment (they can’t out-safety the safety party) this reaction is natural.

There is absolutely nothing dignified about this. It's not "dying on your feet", it's getting down in the mud and shit to flail around with a knife before dying from an infection because you cut yourself.

No it really doesn't.

In the standard formulation of the dilemma, the ideal outcome in terms of individual gain for any single player in a single round is "I defect while the other guy cooperates". By extension the worst possible outcome from the perspective of any individual player is to cooperate with someone who then chooses to defect. This is why defect-defect is a natural equilibrium.

The Democrats wanted tolerance and have been given tolerance.

This is the only sane take. The people claiming this is like a prisoner's dilemma are crazy, given that the prisoner's dilemma involves some level of personal gain (or at least losing less) for playing. Here, it's just pure negative. Nobody here gained from Biden's pardons, nor did they gain by the J6 pardons.

The recipients sure gained. And some J6 protestors appear to have been overcharged and given excessively long punishments. If pardons and clemency should exist at all, it should exist for this situation.

The claim that nobody gained here is preposterous.

The Biden family and thier inner circle of supporters absolutely gained from Biden's pardons.

The protestors who've spent the last 4 years rotting in prison for acts that would have them little more than a slap on the wrist (assuming the got prosecuted at all) had they not been Republicans absolutely gained from Trump's pardons.

Your tribe suffering a setback is not the same thing as everyone being worse off, no matter how similar they may feel in the moment.

Fine, I'll concede the point that a handful of specific individuals have gained. But literally everyone else gained nothing, and in fact is losing by this. So this is still by far a net loss even if a handful of people gained significantly. Your rebuttal "but some people have gained" makes it come off even worse if anything, because now it's hurting the vast majority just to benefit a token few.

Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man should be imprisoned falsely.

A severe injustice has been overturned. The world is a little bit brighter, freer, and more just.

It saddens me that you can't see this.

I am filled with joy for the political prisoners and their families who were railroaded by a weaponized legal system. Those who perpetrated and defended this monstrosity ought to be jailed for at least as long as those now freed.

You make a persuasive point that we should err on the side of protecting innocents. I myself am a strong believer in Blackstone's formulation. On the other hand, I don't think that it's accurate to say that what Trump has done here is motivated by that same desire. If it were, then he would've been more selective about who he pardoned. After all, this isn't an "all or nothing" where we can't do anything about the fact that the guilty (and there are guilty people here) will be set free.

No, in my view this is pure "stick it to them" trying to get back at his outgroup coupled with a healthy dose of not caring whether the presidential pardon power is being abused. And that is not acceptable. We all lose by such an action, and we lose quite a bit at that. So, at best, this is some benefit to those who are innocent coupled with serious damage to the social fabric of the United States. I'm not prepared to accept that trade so readily as you are.

More comments

Not only have we now pardoned even more criminals who should be serving punishments for the things they did, Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.

Which is the same thing they'd most likely do if he decided to pardon everyone except those who provably committed violence against the police.

So what? This line of argument fails twice:

  1. Trump isn't responsible for what they do, he's responsible for what he does. He deserves criticism for provoking others even if they would have acted the same anyway.

  2. Even if you discount his moral responsibility to act right, he still shouldn't do it. This pardon still has screwed everyone over by releasing criminals and further weakening the (paper thin at this point) norms of our country. Even if it's guaranteed that the left would do the same next time they get power, we are still better off if he doesn't pull the same stunt. Fewer outrageous pardons is an unalloyed good, no matter what the left chooses to do when they have the reins.

Why is it always my tribe that has to unilaterally disarm?

  1. It's not, I demand the exact same thing of both sides. But I'm not willing for either side to wait until the other side starts, because then nothing will ever happen.

  2. Even if it were, that would still be better than having all out breaking of norms on both sides. Better for you as well as for them, in fact. Because again, this shit hurts everyone.

  3. Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.

Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.

Trump refused to pardon the J6ers back when it would have been most effective- the day before leaving office.
He did not do that.

Biden could have encouraged prosecution of BLMers back when it would have been most effective- the day after taking office.
He did not do that.

You claim "both sides never even tried for mutual disarmament", but Reds did offer that opportunity, from January 21st, 2021 through January 20, 2025, for Blues to dedicate themselves to prosecuting [their own] rioters and thus disavow their approval and encouragement of burning, looting, and murdering as valid political strategy.

At what point do the demands for rigor become isolated?

In practice, it’s a demand made of my side and not the other, despite most of the actual tyranny coming from the other.

Make a Ta’if agreement.

You say that, but I don't see you down thread tearing your hair out about Fauci and Milley, and at least one of them is definitely a criminal whose actions had much worse effects on society than any j6er.

More comments

Welcome to Culture War, where you can choose between fighting to the detriment of everyone and surrendering for the benefit of your enemies and the detriment of your own.

Or, as we used to call it back on the day, "war".

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