site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's weird to hold the idea that some portion of legal gun owners are ticking time bombs willing to throw their lives away to kill random people if pushed to far, but that there WON'T be some amount of violence and deadly if the government sustains a campaign of door-to-door confiscations.

I think in both cases the "some" is very small. The US government declares "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" and enforces it through door-to-door confiscation, they'll do it with very little bloodshed. What little there is will be almost all on the formerly law-abiding gun owner's part.

I guess we're both without real precedent to point to in the U.S. for universal door-to-door confiscations of any item of importance or value.

But I do note that the U.S. has a long and storied history of individuals telling cops to fuck off when they come to the door.

Like, the State of Texas chose not to go after a single, particularly well armed family for 15 years.

Do I doubt they could have gotten them? No.

But imagine the cops having to make a similar calculus, times 1,000,000 households.

You assume that a few 'examples' being made of people putting up resistance will break the morale of the rest.

Not clear why the flip-side, a dozen or so cops getting capped in the process of serving warrants during the initial weeks of the confiscation effort wouldn't also demoralize their side.

Why do we assume the unshakeable will of LEOs vs. the meek compliance of the American citizenry?

Not clear why the flip-side, a dozen or so cops getting capped in the process of serving warrants during the initial weeks of the confiscation effort wouldn't also demoralize their side.

There won't be a dozen or so. There might be one. They would respond with overwhelming force, and further confiscation would be done by cops in full riot/stormtrooper gear, and that would be the end of that.

Why do we assume the unshakeable will of LEOs vs. the meek compliance of the American citizenry?

It's not the will of the LEOs, it's the will of the confiscators giving them orders. There will be enough LEOs who won't push back on their orders.

I see your point, but I do think the truth is somewhere between you and @faceh.

The number of those who resist will be far below 1%, but they'll be incredibly proficient, well-trained, and armed. I personally know some crazies that would successfully kill multiple cops if we progressed to door-to-door confiscation.

You know about them. Therefore they won't kill anyone, they'll get the "oops, we shot you 10 times in the back while you were resisting" treatment.

It's not the will of the LEOs, it's the will of the confiscators giving them orders. There will be enough LEOs who won't push back on their orders.

I don't really put much stock into this in a post-Floyd world. I imagine that, in your hypothetical scenario, by Week 3 of the Great Gun Confiscation, officers will start conveniently calling in sick.

The president just invokes the insurrection act, federalizes the national guard, and court-martials anyone who tries to pull a fast one like that.

then he might want to abstain from going to the teather for a while.

They would respond with overwhelming force, and further confiscation would be done by cops in full riot/stormtrooper gear, and that would be the end of that.

Those cops have to go home after work, yes?

Like, you're aware that these policemen have lives and families which are not hardened against attacks?

I'm really curious as to what your precedent is for assuming there's not some significant portions of the population that is willing to get froggy even if the cops go full Waco.

Like, Waco fucking happened, that's a precedent here. 4 agents dead, 16 injured in ONE standoff.

That wasn't even a universal confiscation push.

Bluntly, I find your position actively ignores the sheer numbers and actual precedent.

Those cops have to go home after work, yes?

Like, you're aware that these policemen have lives and families which are not hardened against attacks?

Sure. And your decent, formerly law abiding gun owners will not take advantage of that.

I'm really curious as to what your precedent is for assuming there's not some significant portions of the population that is willing to get froggy even if the cops go full Waco.

COVID. January 6. Hell, Waco itself; the ATF walked in and made a dog's breakfast of things. The FBI covered for them by burning the place down with most of the Branch Davidians dying in the fire and the rest being prosecuted. Only two men even tried to do anything about that, and they're pretty universally hated.

Sure. And your decent, formerly law abiding gun owners will not take advantage of that.

Maybe not Johnny Boomer who's never been one to rock the boat in his smallish town, but Jimmy Zoomer, who's about 8-12 points to the left of the very mass shooter who inspired this thread on the Political Compass and isn't terribly concerned about his future might.

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