site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29444 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.

I don't know why you are conflating "doing bad things" with "doing illegal things." They are not the same thing, not in the US or anywhere else. Maybe they should be the same, but they aren't. Were Trump being charged with conducting bad policy, that would be one thing. But he isn't, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to complain that "This is the man who needs to go to prison, out of all living US presidents?" Either he committed a crime, or he didn't. Whether some other President did something morally worse or not is irrelevant.

BTW, as for Bush, if we are counting lives lost and lost saved, he is probably on the positive side of the ledger.

'Wink wink, nudge, nudge, the International Criminal Court is based in one of our vassal states and if that's not enough, we'll invade the Hague the moment a US service member is brought there.'

? The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so this is a very odd example of the US pretending to be defending the rules-based international order.

I don't know why you are conflating "doing bad things" with "doing illegal things." They are not the same thing, not in the US or anywhere else. Maybe they should be the same, but they aren't.

In this case, one of the illegal things is "Whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so." Another is conspiring with others to do that. And "official proceeding" includes, in part, literally any "a proceeding before the Congress" or "a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law".

There have, to be very blunt, been a lot of intentional lies and concealed records from Congress, done knowingly and in many cases for personal political gain. There are ways to cordon of this particular matter as the only time that the statute need be used this way, and huadpe has tried to do so (and I'm sure if pressed enough on the gaps, will eventually come up with a fine enough reference class). But there's little if any reason for anyone to think these chalk lines matter, compared to the text.

What does that have to do with what OP said about wars waged by Bush, etc?

I don't agree with the position, but there were quite a lot of claims that Bush et all pushed and continued the Iraq War through false information provided to Congress, as well as concealed information (both on request, and from general scrutiny) in ways that violate other (if poorly enforced) laws, or by selectively (sometimes unlawfully) leaking information.

Not every alleged lie or concealed matter in question was before Congress in a way subject to 18 USC 1001, or otherwise obviously unlawful or wrong enough to trigger the 'corruptly' prong; not every claim was presented to "obstruct, influence, or impede' an official proceeding. But many people claimed that there were enough, especially by the standards presented in this indictment.

I understand how some might make that argument, but I understood OP's argument to be very different.

Yes, I'd expect @RandomRanger's argument is more "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?", where the decision to have laws one direction and not the other is an explicit choice, and one that undermines the legitimacy of the law.

There's even a hybrid steelman that points out that even where the actual text of a rule is broken by those favored, or where the disfavored are technically within operating within text of the law, or where a 'law' wasn't actually passed in accordance with the rules, new interpretations and concepts and exceptions and excuses precipitate out of thin air or it turns out that no one can ever have standing.

But if your position is that Trump's prosecution should be deliminated solely on the matter that "Either he committed a crime, or he didn't", it's relevant whether other people at similar levels of power committed a crime, or didn't.

BTW, as for Bush, if we are counting lives lost and lost saved, he is probably on the positive side of the ledger.

American troops die for Israel alone in the desert, thousands of miles from their families, but hey Bush saved some Africans from AIDs so it all balances out.

Well they banned you for a bit so I suppose I won't get an answer right away, but if you're game, I'd dearly like to hear an actual rigorous definition of exactly which wars America has fought in the last few decades were "for Israel" and why. Near as I can tell, none of them were suggested or approved by the Israeli state, and none were particularly beneficial to it.

I think I could make a better argument that the US in it's war-making has been rather hostile to Israel. Israel was not permitted to join in on Operation Desert Storm. Saddam launched some SCUDs at them anyways in hopes of provoking a direct response. The US forbade Israel from responding directly and attempted to stop Saddam themselves.

Well, the article says 25 million. If so, it does indeed balance out. Especially since I would bet that some of those dead troops were Jewish, while none of those Africans were. By the only metric you seem to care about, Bush should be your favorite person!

  • -10

By the only metric you seem to care about

In context this appears to be, at best, an incredibly hostile non sequitur. Too antagonistic, don't do this please.

In broader context, at least what I saw from that person until I blocked them, it appears to be on the mark. If not to a particular comment, then definitely to the particular personality.

I apologize, but to be clear it was a reference to dude's constant postings about "the Jooz." Edit: And, his reference to "dying for Isreal." So not much of a non sequitur.

I apologize, but to be clear it was a reference to dude's constant postings about "the Jooz." Edit: And, his reference to "dying for Isreal." So not much of a non sequitur.

Oh, your meaning was clear. But I can't ban a user for single-issue posting if everyone else keeps trotting out that user's hobby-horse for them. Israel is a foreign power. Treating it as a synonym for "Judaism" is something its advocates and critics do interchangeably, depending on the point they want to make. That kind of disclarity is objectionable, here, but so is making uncharitable assumptions about which meaning is intended.

The user to whom you were responding is not the most artful user we have, in terms of disingenuously cloaking objectionable insinuations in plausibly neutral language. But that does not excuse uncharitable jabs from other, similarly artful posters.

We want, in short, for people to have room to change their minds, however minutely. Comments like yours discourage that.

It balances out if you are mentally deranged- maybe you would be happy to trade your child or friend or neighbor being killed for no good reason, so long as a random African is saved from AIDs, then you can consider "the ledger balanced". That's due to a derangement in your value system and not mine.

That's due to a derangement in your value system

You are free to explore value disagreement, but dropping to accusations of derangement is too much heat. I might let it slide if it were some passionate rhetoric in the midst of an effort post, but this comment seems to just be pure heat. Three day ban.

Be that as it may, OP was clearly complaining not just about the loss of American lives but rather the loss of the lives of non-Americans. Hence his reference to Nixon bombing Laos, Obama wrecking Libya, and the "rivers of blood' on Bush's hands, only some of it American. Hence, my reference to foreign lives saved.

That's due to a derangement in your value system and not mine.

This seems to imply that it ethically "deranged" for a US President to endanger the life of a even a single serviceman in order to save the life of non-American civilian children. So, it is unethical to stop a genocide, if it puts American servicemen at risk. It was unethical to evacuate Vietnamese from Saigon. Heck, I guess Hugh Thomson was unethical as well; look at the American lives he endangered.

Did he commit a crime isn’t convincing. He probably did but that doesn’t escape a lawfare question. Are the laws being applied equally or do they only apply to Trump?

If I get called to Trump jury I’ve already decided on jury nullification. And I’ve never voted for him. A nation of laws must have some concept of laws apply to all in the same way.

Are the laws being applied equally or do they only apply to Trump?

Yes, that is precisely my point. The issue is not whether former presidents did bad things, as OP seems to think. It is, as you say, whether they violated a criminal statute.

Every government official for decades has violated criminal statutes. The Logan Act is constantly violated but only applied to Flynn. Biden and Pence both had confidential documents. violating criminal statutes isn’t enough.

Merely having confidential documents is not enough to violate the law. The law requires knowing and intentional retention.

? The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so this is a very odd example of the US pretending to be defending the rules-based international order.

? Not being a member of an international organization, gives anyone the right to invade a sovereign country, if a your citizen is being held their for a trial?

Since I said nothing of the sort, the answer is obviously "no,"

Then it was a very odd objection to the point he was making.

If you think that, then you have misapprehended the particular point I was responding to, which was specifically about the ICC being part of the rules based international order.

Or you have misapprehended his point to begin with.

All I know is:

  1. Using the ICC as an example of the US pretending to support the rules based international order makes no sense;
  2. Inferring therefrom that I think that the US has the right to invade the Hague makes even less.

The issue is the US thinks it has the right to invade Hague. Whether or not it is a part of the ICC is irrelevant re whether or not that makes a mockery of the "rules based order".

Again, you need to read my statement more closely. It has nothing to do with whether the US has a right to invade the Hague (it doesn't) nor with whether it thinks it does (it doesn't).

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