site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33248 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Eric Adams and Shit They Supposed To Do

In what seems like it had to be cultural eons ago (1996), Chris Rock had a famous routine about black men trying to take credit for shit they are supposed to do. Barack Obama referenced it approvingly.

Well, it's decades later and Eric Adams is apparently going to have his corruption charges dropped in exchange for not obstructing the Federal Government's power to enforce immigration law. The punchline here writes itself, but the long term trend ought to be worrying -- a political system can't operate in an environment where dereliction of one's duties can be weaponized into a point of leverage to be bargained for. Adams isn't bargaining for a favor he can do Bondi here -- he's bargaining to stop doing something he was never supposed to be doing in the first place.

The game theory is clear -- the less of your obligations you fulfill, the more leverage you have.

Adams wasn't strategically obstructing immigration enforcement as a backstop against corruption investigations; the entire political infrastructure of the dominant party in his state demanded the city and state nullify federal immigration law, and Adams is agreeing to buck them in exchange for non-prosecution. A much less worrying state of affairs; much more akin to a mob underling agreeing to flip on his bosses and undercover the organization's money-laundering operation.

No, but institutions operate according to incentives in a long run way. If the leaders of liberal states realize that taking a hard-line stance on nullification buys them negotiating power, that increases the incentive to do so.

A very worrying state of affairs.

“Chris Rock had a routine. He said some—too many of our men ..."

Obama almost drops an N-bomb. We were so close. Just kidding.

'Twas ever thus. The idea that states not co-operating with or even obstructing the Federal government in the exercise of its powers is some sinster and unchartered political development is obviously absurd. The Fugitive Slave Law, Reconstruction and the black codes, prohibition, desegregation etc. etc. What is actually the problem, and more abnormal, here, is the federal government using the legal system to intimidate and blackmail political opponents into doing what they want (and before some retard starts moaning about the Trump cases, they were not conditional on anything, they were just prosecutions that were attempted to be carried through to their conclusion, and stood or fell on the merits, not on political cooperation). If the charges are real and would stand up, they should be carried through, not dismissed to get a quid pro quo.

It is absurd. Eisenhower sent the US Army to Arkansas to enforce desegregation. That debate ought to be put to rest.

Eisenhower sent the US Army to Arkansas to enforce desegregation.

Sure, but elsewhere Southern states resisted desegregation for a long time and really quite effectively. Even through the 70s and 80s schools in many deep Southern states (particularly Louisiana if I recall, but also others) where still largely segregated, beyond what one would expect by pure geographic concentration.

I don't think it was terribly effective at all. The policy of segregation was dismantled with great speed.

Of course, the practice persisted beyond the policy, but that's not within the purview of the courts. Certainly no school system retained any kind of segregation policy into the 70s.

New York is still an imperial core region for the US; Arkansas never has been and likely never will be. Texas got away with quite a bit more under the Biden admin than Arizona would have, for the same reason.

Why don’t you believe the Trump cases stood or fell on the merits, not on political cooperation.

Do you mean political cooperation of Trump? The entire thing was a political op; the fact that Trump’s cooperation wasn’t the end goal doesn’t mean the lawfare wasn’t clearly political in nature.

doesn’t mean the lawfare wasn’t clearly political in nature.

I disagree with this, at least in part, but nevertheless these are two very different things. There was no quid pro quo. It's not as a prosecutor said 'if you harden your policy on Russia we'll drop the charges', they just tried to prosecute him and then either succeeded or failed.

Eh, the problem is, at least as much, the constant entanglement of federal and state entities. The Constitution was written for them to be jealous and guarding of their own power. Not to gift it away for pennies.

I gotta say things rings true. Adams sold out for pretty cheap, at least you'd hope a mayor of a core city would be expensive to buy.

Adams was already bought, pre-Trump. Trump is trading him back a little bit of his soul for something both of them actually want, but Adams cant say he wants loudly.

I find it weird to start an argument by saying some anti-social practice is fine because it's always existed, and then pointing to another anti-social practice that has always existed and saying that one is bad.

Both of these are examples of bad faith political maneuvers that undermine the rule of law. I happen to also prefer the former because of my bias towards small government, but it is silly and pointless to argue that some tactic is fine whilst its counter is off limits.

"To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law."

some tactic is fine whilst its counter is off limits.

I mean some things really are just good or bad, or at least legitimate and illegitimate. I have nothing against NY's sanctuary policies because there is no credible threat there to the rule of law - you can criticise it on substantive grounds obviously, but in terms of process it's the normal rough and tumble of politics. I don't think it's anti-social, and this isn't partisan - I also wouldn't object to a red state making life difficult for federal officers enforcing gun control on procedural grounds, only substantive ones. Very explicitly blackmailing your political opponents with 'we will withdraw charges against you if you do what we want on this totally unrelated issues' is not normal.

As an outside observer of American politics, the concept of sanctuary cities never made sense to me as anything else than aiding and abetting crime you approve of.

Now I understand Americans have a vastly different culture of law where things like prosecutorial discretion and federalism can turn this into checks and balances. But it nevertheless undermines the rule of law in my view by allowing criminals that are friendly to local institutions to avoid justice.

I think what you're objecting to here is the personal nature of the quid pro quo, but USG has routinely dangled things like federal funding to get around uncooperative State institutions. The DoE exists (existed?) for no other reason than to subvert the constitution in this way and allow the feds practical control over educational institutions.

I must then ask, what's the difference between doing such politics at the institutional level and the personal level? Keeping in mind that both are attempts to subvert the spirit of the law.

As an outside observer of American politics, the concept of sanctuary cities never made sense to me as anything else than aiding and abetting crime you approve of.

Well, there's a motte and there's a bailey. Cities and States are not obligated to assist the Federal government (amusingly, this is a precedent set by conservative States in not wishing to assist in Federal gun control). But they are also not permitted to obstruct the federal government.

So the mottey person says: sanctuary cities are just cities that have an institutional policy of not assisting where they don't have it. And of course that's true, justifiable and very quickly crosses the line into impermissible obstruction.

This is like taking the immigration bill that democrats tried to pass by the end of Biden's term. It's an acknowledgement that a corrupt democratic mayor that is willing to let immigration law be enforced is the best you can do.

Notably, back then they didn't do this, immigration was a strong point for republicans, and they didn't want to give it away for some half-hearted compromise bill. As to why the change of strategy, two (of many possible) reasons come immediately to mind:

  • They might think the NYC electorate is too captured, and won't elect a Republican mayor again, even as the situation keeps getting worse.
  • With republicans back in charge, the problem with illegal immigrants in NYC will relent on its own (after all, they're not getting there by boat), allowing the democrats to sweep it under the rug for the next election.

The would-be convert always has much more leverage than the lifelong believer.

I think you have this backwards. If Eric Adams goes down, it's a reasonable bet the next Mayor of New York will be uncooperative with immigration enforcement. He's not being rewarded for abandoning his duty, he's being extorted into doing his duty because the Feds have dirt on him. If there was no dirt on him then the Feds wouldn't have any leverage.

If it was the continuous policy of NYC to cooperate with immigration enforcement, then the entire bargaining chip wouldn't be valuable because the next mayor would just continue the policy. Bondi would have no need to do anything because she would already get what is her due anyway.

[ I also don't quite see this as him being extorted into it. He's obviously very clearly guilty of the charges against him, and so it's more like he's cashing it in to have those charges go away. If the charges had been baseless, then I would agree with the characterization. The baseline matters. ]

That's what I mean about the game theory of it -- it pays for the leader of the locality not to do what they are supposed to do. The longer they don't do it, the better and more valuable the leverage, it seems.

what is her due anyway.

This is totally normal tension between state and federal governments, she isn't due anything. If New York is acting illegally, that should be resolved through the courts directly, not by using criminal charges as a bargaining chip. If they aren't, there's nothing she can, or should, do about it.

I think this is far beyond the line of Federalism. NY doesn't have to assist Bondi or Homan, but they cannot prevent the Feds from accessing Rikers or intentionally obstruct them. And yes, I think the courts should forcefully assert it but it's also the purview of the Executive to stand up for its prerogatives.

In fact, using it as a bargaining chip is implicitly acknowledging that the State and the City may do so.

NYC is a sanctuary city- noncooperation with immigration enforcement is a continuous policy there.

Edit- misread your comment

The interesting thing is he paid partially in advance; he turned on immigration not only before Trump got into office, but before the charge were laid, giving credence to the Trump administration's claim that the charges (even though likely true) are themselves politically motivated. From a game theory perspective this makes the Trump administration a better bet to co-operate with; they'll pay you back for favorable action even if you don't make a deal in advance.

Of course the other option was he knew he was guilty and so thought he might be able to get favor with Trump while knowing he wouldn’t get favor to his left.

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