site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30730 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It is an interesting question how far govt can go in cooperating with third parties who have a policy of restricting rights which are protected from infringement by govt. If I have a "no Irishmen allowed" rule at my business, can a govt agent alert me that a certain customer is Irish?

But I agree that the decision is not super well reasoned. Eg, it says:

The targeting of conservative speech indicates that Defendants may have engaged in “viewpoint discrimination,” to which strict scrutiny applies. See Simon & Schuster, Inc., 505 U.S. 105 (1991).

But, targeting one side of an issue, eg vaccine denial, is already viewpoint discrimination. The fact that it is coded conservative (assuming it is) adds nothing to the question of whether strict scrutiny applies.

If I have a "no Irishmen allowed" rule at my business, can a govt agent alert me that a certain customer is Irish?

This isn't actually how things happened if you read the complaint - this would be more akin to the government informing you that you have to implement a "no Irishmen allowed" rule at your business, and then constantly sending you lists of "Irish" people that are sometimes Irish but always members of a political faction opposed to the government.

Not so much "have to" but strongly suggested to, and we also have this Section 230 sword of Damocles hanging over your head that will drop if you're not cooperative enough.

I used that example because it is one of the things that the injunction bars the govt from doing. It also bars the govt from urging changes in rules, as you note, but that is an easier case.

BTW, I would be cautious is assuming that what is alleged in a complaint is "actually how things happened," since that is rarely the case.

I'm not making assumptions - the complaint is in large part based on the twitter files that I've already read. I've already seen the emails and communications from White House officials that were the motivating reason behind this legal effort, and anyone who has been paying attention will have as well.

I don't quite know how you write a policy that prohibits the government from saying things that are true and not secret.

What exactly are you saying here?

What true statements do you think are being barred from being said?

I would hope that a statement like "Facebook Post #12345657 is related to an Issue of Interest wink, wink." would be against the (new?) law if it was sent from the FBI to Facebook. As far as I can tell, that's all that happened to trigger this case.

"This is a nice restaurant you have here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it." is likely a true statement, but in its typical context, illegal anyway.

The list of targeted ideas:

Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power.

I think the government may have preserved its viewpoint neutrality if it had also gone after those that were overstating the risks of COVID-19, or those speculating that the 2020 election was going to be rigged in Trump's favor. Maybe it did and that'll come out later.

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