site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30983 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ok, I'll venture on this side quest with you. I'll promise to come back to the main point afterward.

But at this stage I feel like too many people are in too deep to ever find their way out. Trump is a winner, so if he loses, it's because they cheated. And if he goes to jail it's because he was unfairly targeted, definitely not because he committed a stupendous number of crimes trying to illegally hold on to power. So another loss will simply become even more evidence of how rigged the system is, and another reason to support Trump even harder, onwards into the mists of time.

I am not the best at literary interpretation, so please help me understand what you mean here. When I look up the phrase "mists of time", it says, "used to show that something happened a very long time ago and is difficult to remember clearly". My sense is that this is because of the ultimate nature of mist - it is fleeting, never pinned down to being concretely known in the specifics. My sense is that the point here is that any allegations of double-standards aren't actually true, and that you think Trump-supporters are the ones who won't get pinned down to concrete specifics. Instead, they'll just roll it into the amorphous mist. Is this not what you meant?

No, I meant "mists of time" as in "beyond the foreseeable future". I'm saying I don't really see a point coming where Trump supporters snap out of it and realise Trump is just a loser.

Ok, thanks for clearing up your literary turn of phrase.

Back to the main quest. So, you're actually just ignorant of the examples people have of a double standard. Perhaps you could check out the IG report on the matter, with choice quotes from agents who were sure that he committed the same crime, more blatantly, and had no idea why he wasn't prosecuted?

Why would I do that? I don't dispute that unfair application of the law is a thing that happens sometimes, and I'm not trying to assert it didn't happen in this particular case. Nothing about my opinion or argument hinges on whether or not Mike Flynn was given the same treatment as some other guy.

I'm not arguing that no double standards exist ever. I'm not even arguing that Trump has not been subjected to double standards. I'm arguing that does not give him a free pass to attempt to illegally hold onto power.

Most people simply refuse to entertain the idea that there have been unfair applications at all. They rest, as you seemed to have rested, on, 'If he did a crime, he should go to jail.' But that reasoning is completely undermined if, what is actually happening, is unfair application of the law. So, the minimal pathway of arguing is to demonstrate that there are, in fact, unfair applications of the law. This far, you seem to agree. Then, argue that those unfair applications have been targeted against Trump and Trump-adjacents, while being lenient toward others, which dovetails into the claim that the entrenched powers of the bureaucracy are using their hard power in a differential fashion. It is not yet clear what your opinion is on this matter. Finally, we would be in a place to discuss whether these particular charges are of a kind with those or not. But right now, we're at step two.

Do you accept that Mike Flynn was prosecuted for something that Paul Combetta was given a pass for, even though Combetta far more clearly and egregiously violated the law in question? If not, why not? If so, do you have an explanation for this other than that the entrenched powers of the bureaucracy are using their hard power in a differential fashion against Trump-adjacents?

This is the easy part, where we can hopefully come to some relatively benign agreement, in order to show that we are reasoning from similar-enough premises that we don't have to discuss the final topic across a vast inferential gap.

I'm arguing that does not give him a free pass to attempt to illegally hold onto power.

Given that he, in fact, gave up office as scheduled, do you think that he should be allowed to run again in a free and fair election?

Most people simply refuse to entertain the idea that there have been unfair applications at all. They rest, as you seemed to have rested, on, 'If he did a crime, he should go to jail.' But that reasoning is completely undermined if, what is actually happening, is unfair application of the law.

I disagree. To the extent that there has been unfair application of the law, the rectification of that is that other people who have been treated leniently should also be punished. It does not imply that the clearly guilty should go free.

Do you accept that Mike Flynn was prosecuted for something that Paul Combetta was given a pass for, even though Combetta far more clearly and egregiously violated the law in question? If not, why not? If so, do you have an explanation for this other than that the entrenched powers of the bureaucracy are using their hard power in a differential fashion against Trump-adjacents?

I neither accept nor dispute it. I remain entirely ignorant of who Combetta is and what he is supposed to have done.

I accept that it's entirely possible that the law has been unfairly applied in this case. I further accept that it is possible that such unfair treatment was due to political agendas. If that is the case, and Mr Combetta has been unjustly protected, then the appropriate remedy is to remove those law enforcement officials that have failed to apply the law in an even handed fashion, and to install new ones who will zealously pursue justice against Mr Combetta.

Given that he, in fact, gave up office as scheduled, do you think that he should be allowed to run again in a free and fair election?

No, this is the Sideshow Bob argument. "Attempted murder? What is that? They don't give Nobel Prizes for attempted chemistry!" It would be absurd to have a standard that only successful coups could be punished.

To the extent that there has been unfair application of the law, the rectification of that is that other people who have been treated leniently should also be punished. It does not imply that the clearly guilty should go free.

Are you sure you're willing to commit to this? We are a nation of many laws, most of which could be construed expansively (in just the kinds of ways they're doing here), so as to criminalize vast swaths of behavior that no one actually believed was criminal in the first place. Are you really willing to subject your side's politicians, your colleagues, your friends, even yourself, to criminal sanctions for whatever interpretation we can come up with of some abstruse law? Consider this classic post while you're pondering.

If that is the case, and Mr Combetta has been unjustly protected, then the appropriate remedy is to remove those law enforcement officials that have failed to apply the law in an even handed fashion, and to install new ones who will zealously pursue justice against Mr Combetta.

These people are the "entrenched bureaucracy" that we're talking about. You're now sounding like you're flying the MAGA flag.

It would be absurd to have a standard that only successful coups could be punished.

I mean, no one is being prosecuted for even an attempted coup. Remember, they deliberately chose not to prosecute "insurrection".

Are you sure you're willing to commit to this? We are a nation of many laws, most of which could be construed expansively (in just the kinds of ways they're doing here), so as to criminalize vast swaths of behavior that no one actually believed was criminal in the first place. Are you really willing to subject your side's politicians, your colleagues, your friends, even yourself, to criminal sanctions for whatever interpretation we can come up with of some abstruse law? Consider this classic post while you're pondering.

Bad laws exist. They should be repealed rather than ignored or applied unevenly. Maintaining laws on the books that no one follows just breeds contempt for the law itself, and allows for the law to be used in a discriminate way. But it should be either/or. Repeal the law, or enforce it. You have to choose one.

These people are the "entrenched bureaucracy" that we're talking about. You're now sounding like you're flying the MAGA flag.

Is there a problem with that?

I mean, no one is being prosecuted for even an attempted coup. Remember, they deliberately chose not to prosecute "insurrection".

The central bad thing that Trump did is that he attempted to use illegal and illegitimate methods to hold onto power after losing the election. That act is absolutely being prosecuted.

Note that I say "illegitimate" here as well as "illegal". By making that distinction I am highlighting that his methods were not merely illegal but also that they should be illegal - precisely because if legal they would allow someone to assume power without democratic legitimacy. This is the difference with contesting the election results in court - a process that is both legal and legitimate (because it allows correct claims to succeed and false ones to fail).

Bad laws exist. They should be repealed rather than ignored or applied unevenly. Maintaining laws on the books that no one follows just breeds contempt for the law itself, and allows for the law to be used in a discriminate way. But it should be either/or. Repeal the law, or enforce it. You have to choose one.

But what if "you" don't? What if, what we actually see in practice, in the real world, is that laws are maintained on the books that are applied unevenly and in a discriminatory fashion? What do you do then? Do you start to show contempt for the law itself (or at least the uneven appliers of the law)? Or do you sit back and smugly say that your political opponents should have no problem if they just follow the law?

The central bad thing that Trump did is that he attempted to use illegal and illegitimate methods to hold onto power after losing the election. That act is absolutely being prosecuted.

Ok, I think we're getting somewhere. Which counts would you preserve/defend? For the rest of the charges, would you agree that they are somewhere on the spectrum of "questionable to bullshit", primarily being examples of the entrenched bureaucracy's attempt to use their hard power against someone they view as a political opponent?

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