site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   34789 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 2022

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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you're going to say "no" you probably should say something that contradicts me. When Trump was banned he was still POTUS, and we are discussing a scenario when he's POTUS again.

We are talking about whether he should be restored now, are we not?

And, btw, your premise ("if access to POTUS' tweets is some sort of fundamental right") is completely wrong; the constitutional question is not about access to tweets; it is whether a govt social media account can engage in viewpoint discrimination. The case was about the right to speak, not about the right to access information.

We are talking about whether he should be restored now, are we not?

Yeah, and a question asked in this comment chain was: "No, seriously, what's so important about Twitter/FB that the POTUS needs to be on it?". So we are discussing a scenario where he's the POTUS, right?

it is whether a govt social media account can engage in viewpoint discrimination. The case was about the right to speak

But it wasn't a government social media account, and no one's right to speak was limited. Even if we decide that both of those things are true just because the court said so, that just means Twitter is limiting the right to speak of all Twitter users.

But it wasn't a government social media account ... and no one's right to speak was limited

Except that the court held that indeed it was, for First Amendment purposes, and that indeed they were, under very longstanding principles of First Amendment law.

that just means Twitter is limiting the right to speak of all Twitter users.

You have your facts wrong. The issue was Trump blocking people, not Twitter. Note that in court, Trump did NOT argue that Twitter was blocking anyone, but that he was, but that he was doing so as a private person. Alternatively, he argued that doing so was "government speech" -- a terrible argument, but nevertheless a refutation of the claim that Twitter was the one doing the blocking.

Except that the court held that indeed it was, for First Amendment purposes, and that indeed they were, under very longstanding principles of First Amendment law.

I don't believe that a judge saying something automatically makes it true.

You have your facts wrong.

No I don't. I agree with the facts as you stated them.

The issue was Trump blocking people, not Twitter. Note that in court, Trump did NOT argue that Twitter was blocking anyone, but that he was, but that he was doing so as a private person.

So just as a hypothetical, if Trump asked Twitter to block that journalist from responding to him, and Twitter obliged, that would have been fine, according to you?

I don't believe that a judge saying something automatically makes it true

Perhaps not, but when a judge reaches a conclusion by applying well-established law to uncontroverted facts, it is incumbent upon those who claim that the judge has erred to explain why, not simply to say "in my untutored opinion, it is wrong."

So just as a hypothetical, if Trump asked Twitter to block that journalist from responding to him, and Twitter obliged, that would have been fine, according to you?

No, because under even more well-established law, that sort of joint action would probably constitute state action and hence bring Twitter's action under the ambit of the First Amendment.

Perhaps not, but when a judge reaches a conclusion by applying well-established law to uncontroverted facts, it is incumbent upon those who claim that the judge has erred to explain why, not simply to say "in my untutored opinion, it is wrong."

If he did, in fact reach that conclusion by applying principles, you can bring that reasoning up in the discussion, rather than just say "a court said it".

No, because under even more well-established law, that sort of joint action would probably constitute state action and hence bring Twitter's action under the ambit of the First Amendment.

Cool. So since we know various alphabet agencies have access to an API where they can ask for the removal of content, would you then agree that if Trump's account was banned following such a request, then the ban was illegal?

If he did, in fact reach that conclusion by applying principles, you can bring that reasoning up in the discussion, rather than just say "a court said it".

  1. It wasn't a "he", it was a they - a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit

  2. The decision is easy enough to find, and of course it cites all sorts of black letter law. It appears, to anyone who is at all familiar with First Amendment law, to be pretty much a no brainer - which is probably why the decision was unanimous, and why the petition for rehearing en banc was denied.

So since we know various alphabet agencies have access to an API where they can ask for the removal of content, would you then agree that if Trump's account was banned following such a request, then the ban was illegal?

As always re state action, that depends on the specific facts. For example, if the govt is merely telling Twitter that they found a tweet that they think violates Twitter's terms of service, then no. If they said, "remove this tweet or else," then yes. If it is somewhere in between, then it depends. I do note that the very article you link says that social media companies took action on only 35 percent of the items flagged by the government, which seems to imply that this is closer to the former than to the latter.

BTW, AFAIK, Twitter, et al, are wrong to censor any speech that is protected under the First Amendment, which includes pretty much everything Trump has ever said (other than some things that might constitute defamation). But, unfortunately, the law currently allows them to do so. Perhaps that will change; with any luck, Florida and Texas will win their lawsuits on that very issue.

For example, if the govt is merely telling Twitter that they found a tweet that they think violates Twitter's terms of service, then no.

Then why is it wrong when Trump is "merely telling Twitter" to remove something?

More comments

It wasn't a "he", it was a the

Not relevant.

The decision is easy enough to find

Everything we talk about here is easy enough to find. What's the point of participating in a discussion, if you're just going act like this?

As always re state action, that depends on the specific facts. For example, if the govt is merely telling Twitter that they found a tweet that they think violates Twitter's terms of service, then no. If they said, "remove this tweet or else," then yes.

Why was it so clear cut when the scenario was "Trump asks them to have the person blocked", and suddenly there so many things to consider when the scenario is "the FBI asks for Trump to be banned"? Keep in mind my original scenario did not involve an "or else".

More comments

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