site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   Edited 2yr ago   38752 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 12, 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.

40
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'd apply that last part to human rights lawyers who frustrate deportations -- if anyone you rescued from deportation commits a crime, you are also held responsible.

Lawyers are enforcing the rules of the game.

I know the rules are bullshit and people often deliberately frustrate the setting of the rules, but before making lawyers responsible for the crimes of the people they represent I would want to try everything else first.

Lawyers are enforcing the rules of the game.

Yeah, no, and being a regulatory lawyer in private practice is my day job. A lot of regulatory law is deliberately contorting and poking the process as hard and as wildly as possible, often in manners completely disconnected from the actual equities of the case, to achieve some sort of preferred policy result or outcome for the client.

I really cannot overstate how much I despise these lawyers. I don't believe for one moment that they actually believe that the asylum laws were intended to include migrants from countries that are simply unpleasant places to live. I think they know beyond any shadow of doubt that coaching economic migrants up on how to make asylum claims that result in them being released into the interior of the country is exploiting a loophole in how the law works. They want people to be able to migrate freely, they know they can exploit that loophole, and they feel morally righteous in doing so.

I don't know if Patchwork_October has the perfect solution, but it seems like a good enough workaround to curtail the worst of this behavior.

I really cannot overstate how much I despise these lawyer

If the answer to "why are we punishing the lawyers" is "because I hate them" then we have really cut through all the bullshit exceptionally fast.

I really like Patchwork_October's idea for requiring birthright sponsors for immigrants. I would go further and have them put up a bond to stop some judgement-proof patsy being used.

And I'm advocating changing the rules.

I honestly don't see the problem. If you're asserting that a person isn't a danger and can be released into the general population, you should be held accountable if you're wrong. Otherwise if that person goes and robs from someone, or rapes or murders, the cost of your bad decision is entirely externalised. Unless your terminal value is letting the most people stay in the country you possibly can, what's wrong with it?

And I'm advocating changing the rules.

To say that people questioning the rules get punished. Typical strongman behavior but I will try literally anything else.

If you have the power to punish lawyers for representing the wrong people, you also have the power to say those immigrants just do not have legal rights to stay in the country in the first place.

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