site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32964 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 2023

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Neither the purpose nor destination (Jerusalem) were known as far as I can tell. There was speculation that the purpose was political rather than the deceptively stated purpose of the trip. Nobody knew DeSantis was going to show up in Jerusalem randomly to sign a new Florida hate speech law and give a keynote address at the Museum of Tolerance. That's "secret" in my book, you are welcome to split hairs if you want.

You say "split hairs," I say "moving goalposts." First it was a "secret trip," which you intentionally phrased as if De Santis were covertly slipping off to Israel to sign American legislation at the behest of his Jewish masters under cover of darkness. When multiple people pointed out to you that it was widely publicized and there was nothing secretive or unusual about his trip, now it's "Well, I didn't see a complete, detailed itinerary and schedule of activities, therefore it's 'secret' in my book."

Went to Israel, "randomly showed up in Jerusalem" - come on, man.

there was nothing secretive or unusual about his trip

Not sure what else to say, I think DeSantis signing a Florida hate speech law in Jerusalem is unusual. You are free to take the position that it's not unusual, but it's important anyway.

I'd be open to an argument that it's unusual for an American politician to sign a bill while traveling abroad (I don't actually know how unusual this is), and hell, I'd even be open to an argument, if you could make it, that there is something particularly significant about him signing this particular law in Israel, though your implied "Because Da Joos told him to" needs a lot more groundwork.

The problem is, you started with "secret trip to Israel" and are now backpedaling so obviously that it's hard to take any such argument from you as sincere or concerned with factuality.

I'd be open to an argument that it's unusual for an American politician to sign a bill while traveling abroad

There was a lot of talk about Obama's famous autopen he used to sign legislation while being out of DC. So it's not unprecedented. I remember this discussion because I never seen that device before and then learned its use goes back to Thomas Jefferson (Obama likely used a more modern version of it). Example: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/05/27/136724009/obamas-autopen-signing-of-patriot-act-raises-eyebrows-has-unlikely-ally

And of course the idea that Da Joos can't command their thrall De Santis to sign the bill by phone or any other remote communication, but must be hypnotizing him in person in Jerusalem is as hilarious as most crazy ideas this kind of folks spits out.

I'd be open to an argument that it's unusual for an American politician to sign a bill while traveling abroad

This just seems super disingenuous. This isn't just "an American politician signing a bill while traveling abroad", it's a Florida presidential hopeful signing a hate speech law in Jerusalem.

though your implied "Because Da Joos told him to" needs a lot more groundwork.

Ok, so what's your theory for why this happened? Are you just going to say the same thing but in different terms? He's trying to get support for his campaign.

As I said, I am open to the argument. You haven't made one. You just keep saying "Israel" like that's enough of an argument. Seriously, tell me that this is a first, or that no one has ever done this in any country but Israel, or anything else that would support anything beyond your unstated Dark Hinting. Is De Santis trying to curry favor with Jewish voters? Absolutely. There are, in fact, a lot of Jewish voters in Florida. No ZOG conspiracies are necessary to explain this.

Other than that one word "secret", can you just copy + paste the part of my post where you think I didn't substantiate it with an argument?

That one word "secret" is doing a lot of work here. You went out of your way to emphasize it, with a (!) and everything.

It took quite a few back and forths for you to retreat to "Okay, it wasn't secret but it wasn't publicized" and then to "Okay, it was publicized, but it's still shady dammit!"

As far as the law itself, I don't have strong feelings about it, though I am as skeptical as most here about hate speech laws in general.

The gist of your post, however, is clearly "DeSantis is enacting pro-Jew legislation at the behest of the Jews who actually run the United States, trying to make it illegal to criticize Jews." You don't say this, as you never spell out what you handwave at, because if you did spell out your actual arguments, they would be much easier to copy+paste and point out the unsubstantiated parts. But other people in the thread have done a pretty good job of knocking them down anyway.

Hence, I'm calling out the "secret" part.

That one word "secret" is doing a lot of work here.

Ok, let's try removing that word and reading the rest of the post. Do you think the meaning of the post is different? I think it is extremely significant that DeSantis is signing hate speech legislation in Jerusalem. That is worth many (!!!) in my book.

The gist of your post, however, is clearly "DeSantis is enacting pro-Jew legislation at the behest of the Jews who actually run the United States, trying to make it illegal to criticize Jews."

Would you say that's a charitable interpretation of my post?

But let's continue on. Let's say that DeSantis did not do this because Jews wanted him to. Why, then, did he sign this law in Jerusalem? What's your theory, if it wasn't to cater to Jewish interests?

More comments

March 28, CNN: "DeSantis plans to travel to Jerusalem as tumult strains Netanyahu-Biden relationship". So, the destination was known.

Washington Free Beacon April21: "Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is expected to run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is set to begin a trip abroad on Saturday taking him through Japan, South Korea, Israel and the United Kingdom." Note that that was before the bill passed, and that he visited several other places. So it is unlikely that the purpose was to sign the bill.

Yeah, that puzzled me, can any politician sign a bill while outside the country? I guess the answer is "no."

The answer is "yes", at lease since 2011. Example: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/05/27/136724009/obamas-autopen-signing-of-patriot-act-raises-eyebrows-has-unlikely-ally

TLDR: As long as the authorized politician directly gives his consent and his command to sign the bill, he can direct his subordinate to perform the physical act of affixing the signature without being present at the same place.

Huh, TIL.

Why wouldn't he be able to sign it while outside the country?

I mean, having a rule that bills have to be signed in a certain place is just asking to be coup'd

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