site banner
PaperclipPerfector  13d ago (text post)   33638 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

So, what about the raid from extra-territorial natives?

What would it mean to be an "extra-territorial native" that was not covered under the exemption for Native Americans? What other group is being imagined here?

The way I think of it is that the US does have jurisdiction, but the criminal is the commanding goverment rather than him. In any case, if the existence of such a sphere were sufficient to deny jurisdiction, then officials with sovereign immunity would also be "not subject to jurisdiction".

I don't understand why they wouldn't both be criminals. I think pretty ordinarily if person X commits a crime on person Y's orders they are both criminals. I'm not sure what logic makes the foreign government a criminal and not the individual who committed the acts constituting the crime.

In any case, if the existence of such a sphere were sufficient to deny jurisdiction, then officials with sovereign immunity would also be "not subject to jurisdiction".

I think the people that literally constitute the sovereign whose jurisdiction we are discussing are under the jurisdiction of the sovereign they constitute.

Im not sure how often following families were net helpful vs something the command couldnt take away from soldiers, and dont think the outcome should depend on that. And what if some enemy civilians attempt to settle conquered land?

As you note above, invading armies likely has some meaning beyond the literal soldiers since children born to soldiers must be pretty uncommon. That comes directly out of Ark. I'm comfortable thinking of informal logistical support as being part of the "army" in that sense. I think enemy civilians would fall under the jurisdiction of the government being occupied.

In general, the tenor of this conversation is you attempting to draw a more complex and less obvious distinction, that will accommodate the invasion exception without excepting illegal immigrants. You havent found counterexamples to my relatively simple theory that accommodates it. This very much looks like you bending towards a desired conclusion.

I disagree. Invading armies, organized under the auspices of some government, seem to me quite different than a group of unrelated people not organized with each other or by any government. In relation to each other, to the country they are coming from, to the country they are going to. Treating them the same does not make any sense. In what sense are illegal immigrants an "army?"

What other group is being imagined here?

As I said, natives living on land not even claimed by the US. Or maybe natives living on canadian land and only coming over for the raid. Or maybe the mongol hordes coming across the Bering straight, plundering a few US towns and then going back home, but with a baby born along the way, if you just cant process anything involving natives. I pick these examples because Im quite sure they would have considered that an exempted invasion at the time.

I don't understand why they wouldn't both be criminals.

Practically speaking, we treat organised crime like this because we expect that we can dominate them completely, and with the opposing army we dont. The rule of condemning all is powerful but brittle, and must be used carefully. Note that CSA soldiers were criminals rather than foreign soldiers to the US, but were largely excused. But this is getting very substantive, in a branch that I dont strictly need. Better to stop it here.

I think the people that literally constitute the sovereign whose jurisdiction we are discussing are under the jurisdiction of the sovereign they constitute.

So do I. Yet you have made your case on a principle implying they arent. You cant shrug off weird implication just because they would be weird.

I think enemy civilians would fall under the jurisdiction of the government being occupied.

As in, they would get the citizenship? I think people at the time would disagree.

I disagree.

No you dont. What youre describing is not a counterexample, but an attack on plausibility. What I said is that the simple principle of government doesnt want you to come in = refusing jurisdiction agrees with all cases known from before the time of immigration restrictions. Im also not saying the immigrant is an army - I dont see the illegal immigration exemption as a subtype of the invasion exception - I think the plausible justifications for the invasion exception also justify that one.

Invading armies, organized under the auspices of some government, seem to me quite different than a group of unrelated people not organized with each other or by any government.

And I argue, both in OP and here, that this is simply asserting a distinction that you dont actually have a good way to draw, as evidenced by the difficulty in detail we have explored in this thread.

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