site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   21611 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 9, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Until the 2A opponents are willing to acknowledge and respect the things which ARE clearly protected, I'm not willing to play the game of "Oh, we've established that there can be restrictions, now we're just quibbling about where to draw the line".

I’m asking what is clearly protected. I don’t oppose the 2A as currently interpreted, I just think there’s more nuance than many seem to acknowledge. For example, I don’t believe the 2A supports the expansive weapons ownership rules guaranteed rights that many libertarians would like, even though I think some of those rights would be fair. I think it maybe allows states to allow very free weapons ownership, but it doesn’t force them to.

Any thoughts on whether the First Amendment forces states to allow willynilly use of the press or just gives them the option of allowing privately held journalistic enterprises if they think it's a good idea?

I think the First Amendment certainly allows states much more control over speech than was decided in the 20th century. In general I see much of the core 20th century SCOTUS decision-making as self-serving, in that it vastly expanded the nominal authority of the constitution, thus (because amendments are so hard) enshrining the Supreme Court as by far the most powerful institution in the United States, granted near unlimited authority in “interpreting” a vague 18th century document according, mostly, to the political principles of those who nominated them to that body.

But yes, I’d like to see speech rights, weapon rights, civil rights, voting rights (I think states ought to be free to determine how and who they send to Congress), and really almost everything else devolved back to the states, although I concede it’s unrealistic. If Utah wants to be a Mormon theocracy under the literal control of the LDS Church, that sounds like an interesting model of government that I think would be fascinating to have in the US.

I don't think selective incorporation is consistent; the Second is as enforceable against the states as the First or the Fourth.

There's really very little nuance in "shall not be infringed". Appeals to nuance in this case, like so many others, are an attempt to say "You have the right to keep and bear arms, but..." and nothing before the "but" matters.

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