site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29442 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not a crime to falsely claim "I work for the Red Cross".

It's a crime to falsely claim "I work for the Red Cross and we're collecting donations, how much would you like to give?"

Is it a crime to say that the elections are rigged and actually the other candidate won?

Nope.

It's a crime to falsely say "I am a duly elected and qualified elector from the state of Michigan and I cast my vote in the electoral college for Donald Trump" with the intention of subverting the will of the voters of Michigan though.

Regarding "subverting the will of the voters", then what is your opinion on the plea for faithless electors in the 2016 election to overturn the results for Trump?

On November 16, 2016, journalist Bill Lichtenstein published an article entitled, "The Way Out of Trumpland: Hail Mary Pass to Save the Nation" in the Huffington Post, detailing the plans by presidential elector Micheal Baca to seek to derail Trump's ascent to the presidency by convincing Democratic and Republican presidential electors to vote for a more moderate candidate on December 19, 2016, when the Electoral College voted. Lichtenstein's article soon went viral, and on December 5, 2016, several members of the electoral college, seven from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican Party, publicly stated their intention to vote for a candidate other than the pledged nominee at the Electoral College vote on December 19, 2016.

Should we be charging Mr. Lichtenstein with a crime for publicising an attempt to thwart the will of voters?

...sigh.

Here's the thing with crimes. You need to satisfy all the elements of an offence to have committed the offence. You can't just say "Oh hey this one thing this other guy did is kind of like a crime in one individual way, better lock him up."

Bill Lichtenstein did not violate any statute when he wrote that article, so he should not be penalised. If you disagree, point to the specific charge you think he should be prosecuted for and the elements of that charge and explain how you think they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You need to satisfy all the elements of an offence to have committed the offence.

This would be a conspiracy charge.

Which statute should Mr Lichtenstein be charged under and who has he allegedly conspired with?

How come?

And how is that not a subversion of the electoral college in the first place if it's accurate?

Because there's laws against it.

All 16 individuals were each charged with eight felonies: Two counts of forgery, one count of conspiracy to commit forgery, two counts of election law forgery, one count of conspiracy to commit election law forgery, one count of publishing a counterfeit record and one count of conspiring to publish a counterfeit record.

I am just endlessly puzzled by the American electoral system. How in the hell can a State pass a law to restrict how someone they nominate to a Federal body votes? How is that in any way constitutional? It doesn't make any sense to me.

So if that's true, could, say Texas pass a law that forces all their house representatives or senators to vote a certain way?

I think we've gotten our wires crossed here. I'm talking about someone trying to submit false electoral votes when they are not in fact a member of the electoral college. You seem to be talking about someone who is a member of the electoral college but votes differently to how they were supposed to.

That's also breaking the law in most (all?) states, but it's breaking a different law. And yes, it's constitutional to enforce penalties against faithless electors, as the Supreme Court unamimously ruled.

Right this makes more sense.

Except the faithless elector bit, that's coup level nonsense on the face of it by anything of what I've read about why the federalists wanted the EC to exist in the first place.

I have of course no reason to doubt that you're accurately portraying that decision but I'm going to have to read that just to understand how they could even argue something like that.

This is probably the money quote:

(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint.

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