site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11d ago (text post)   33226 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.

'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.

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