site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26881 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, they just put him in for contempt on the word of the judge who gave the order.

Again this is without precedent, so I don't think anyone can be confident in this outcome.

In the vast majority of times the question of the State's authority to resist Federal intervention has arisen, the whole situation gets put on hold and fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. Since that's one of the main reasons they exist.

So understand that I can envision the scenario where Abbot backs down after a SCOTUS ruling establishing that he's apparently in the wrong, but I have a much, much harder time envisioning (and ascribe low probability to) Federal agents immediately jumping to arrest a sitting Governor on a contempt order where there is any probability that the State government declines to cooperate and there's likely an immediate appeal.

I mean Jesus, there IS precedent of Federal Agents Attempting to serve warrants in Texas wherein the party on the other side declined to cooperate. It was a debacle all around and I doubt that the FedGov has really forgotten that lesson.

Likewise, FedGov has folded in more recent memory when faced with CIVILIAN resistance. FedGov didn't just roll through the barricades and easily arrest those involved. It was way messier overall.

Cliven Bundy is, as of now, still a free man. Strange to see that FedGov can be cowed by a rancher out of Nevada and yet conclude they would simply steamroll the Governor of one of the largest states in the Country without a second thought.

Anyhow, I doubt any of this comes to fruition, I just think "they'll put him in Federal Prison" is not the easy checkmate move you're asserting.

There is plenty of precedent to throw people in jail for contempt on the word of the judge who claimed the contempt. That's how contempt works.

In the vast majority of times the question of the State's authority to resist Federal intervention has arisen, the whole situation gets put on hold and fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. Since that's one of the main reasons they exist.

The precedents are now in place; no need to wait. The Insurrection Act exists, and the National Guard can be federalized at the word of the President.

Cliven Bundy is, as of now, still a free man. Strange to see that FedGov can be cowed by a rancher out of Nevada and yet conclude they would simply steamroll the Governor of one of the largest states in the Country without a second thought.

Steamrollering Cliven Bundy doesn't politically benefit anyone; the bureaucracy might do it on its own but it doesn't help the political set. Steamrolling Abbott with a sufficient legal fig leaf is like steamrolling Wallace back in the day -- it shows who is in charge.

Strange for you to, in response to /u/the_nybbler predicting that the Feds will use overwhelming force to roll over any state resistance, bring up Waco siege as an example of Feds having trouble with serving warrants. Yeah, next time they have troubles, they do another Waco, why not?

Because Waco was considered an ur-example of a poorly run operation that resulted in more carnage than was really necessary and the exact sort of collateral damage (women, kids) that should be avoided whenever possible.

It lasted 51 days on top of it all, so for a long time they DID repel the government's ability to serve the warrant.

At least, consider how the most recent popular documentary about it was received. I don't think public opinion on the situation was favorable to the state, and would the President really want to have that kind of massacre on their hands?

I dunno, there was no major upside for the Government regarding how that turned out. It is fathomable that they might risk that sort of event again for a sufficiently important goal, but I doubt they'd be eager to do so.

I don't think public opinion on the situation was favorable to the state.

Pretty sure you’re wrong. Violent persecution of religious sects is surprisingly popular.

Because Waco was considered an ur-example of a poorly run operation that resulted in more carnage than was really necessary and the exact sort of collateral damage (women, kids) that should be avoided whenever possible.

Citation needed, I think. The government investigated and repeatedly cleared itself of wrongdoing. Nobody was held accountable in any way or suffered any consequence. The government won every lawsuit filed against it. The most they would admit is that some information about the use of incendiary devices was withheld, for which unspecified disciplinary action was pursued against unspecified individuals, with undisclosed outcome. The government's position was and remains that they did a pretty good job and that bad PR is a result of disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Public opinion at the time was absolutely favorable to the state; the general sentiment was the Branch Davidians were a bunch of religious wackos who molested kids and shot at the government and deserved what was coming to them. ATF ended up looking utterly incompetent, but that was the worst of it for the government.

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