site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   36243 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.

The Supreme Court will surely rule to uphold birthright citizenship, right?

Regardless of what the intent of the 14th amendment was, the language seems pretty clear to me. And, despite what liberals might think, the current court isn't just a conservative version of the Warren-era clownshow. They seem pretty reasonable for the most part and often reach a bipartisan consensus.

The Supreme Court will surely rule to uphold birthright citizenship, right?

Oh, certainly. But then, there's the question of whether Jim might be right when he says things like:

Doubtless the left will say of the order ending birthright citizenship “Hey, Civics 101, an executive order must have a basis in existing law or the constitution. You cannot change the constitution by executive order” That is normality bias. We have not had laws nor a constitution for a long time. There will be a supreme court case over birthright censorship, but it will matter as much as the Queen arriving in a stagecoach to open Parliament matters.

and:

It is normality bias to think that the upcoming Supreme court case on anchor babies matters. Whether these executive orders have actual effect is going to be resolved in a different way.

Augustus Caesar had military victory and death squads, and it still took him twelve years to get the Roman government in order. Trump has none of those, but he has made an impressive start.

We have long said that America’s problems are coup complete. When Trump was president, but not in power, and the presidency was in power, we often said that Trump should perform an autogolpe against the presidency. Trump has issued a pile of executive orders against the presidency, which look very like an autogolpe. That the border orders and the hostage rescue took effect makes it likely that the autogolpe will take effect. But, on the other hand, even after sending most of the long parliament home, Cromwell found it heavy going, and so did Augustus Caesar.

If Trump’s decrees subjecting the presidency to the president stick, all his decrees will stick, including constitutional amendment by presidential decree. If they do not, none of them will stick. I am still keeping my head down because I do not want to be J6ed.

I think the question is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” appears to be surplusage if it simply means anyone born in the US. So what does it mean apart from simply being borne in the US

I mean, do you think this part is clear?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Because the Supreme Court already neutered that part beyond recognition. Gutting the sentence immediately prior wouldn't even be novel ground.

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