site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25095 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So to avoid the common pitfalls in discussions like this, set aside Trump for a moment. Should judges have any authority to impose gag orders? If so, what limits should be in place? After working out the questions in theory, how does your position apply to Trump?

Oh no, I'm all for it. The sooner the courts can get as deeply involved in politics as the intelligence agencies are, the sooner we can dispense with the stupid notions that we're a "democracy", or a "nation of laws". Inevitably, the law will be whatever Harvard Law says it is. Until it isn't, and then it will be what whoever has the biggest gun says it is.

I don't understand this worldview. Are you implying that we have somehow fallen from grace compared to our hallowed past? The law has always been whatever [insert powerful institution] says it is, and that's always been overridden by whoever has the biggest gun. Genuinely, when has this never been the case in human history? If you want to argue that it has gotten worse, then I'm very curious to hear your evidence.

… the sooner we can dispense with the stupid notions that we're a "democracy", or a "nation of laws"…

I’m not a fan of democracy, but if we can distinguish the autonomous political system from representation generally; it’s still worrisome to imagine what our political future would look like once we break past that illusion.

“Fascism” or even “authoritarianism” have never been a pejorative to me, but I still worry about casual uses of the concept. As palatable as I am to the latter, a move to it away from the former doesn’t mean that therefore society becomes ruled under “Tretiak,” or anyone else.

If you ask me, once we realize that, we have two options:

1: A reversion to federalism. We withdraw from foreign affairs slowly, push policy back down to the state and local level, become balkanized. States restrict travel and trade between themselves. Mutually warring courts try to get leverage on the other as they all lose complete control of the legal system. We lose our position as sole superpower, we are no longer the world reserve currency, standards of living drop to come in line with Europe more broadly and our national politics grinds into a multi-century quagmire.

2: Rome 2, Electric Boogaloo.

I’m not at all convinced this is a realistic solution, for a number of reasons.

When you think about how much has changed in the world over the course of the last 100 years, I think the conclusion is fairly easily established that most of the problems waiting out there for us are global in nature, and can’t be addressed on a local or fully individualized basis.

The whole neoliberal obsession with “small efficient government” for instance, is a complete nonstarter. “Small efficient government” works when you face “small efficient” challenges. When you face something ‘systemic’, you need the strong and long reach of the arm of government to be able implement solutions that are 1) unprofitable to do, 2) can’t rely on community consensus to generate the will and 3) need nation state backing - all of which are unworkable on a local level.

As for the US losing superpower status, that’ll happen eventually. As it has with every nation that’s come before us. Whatever that catalyzing moment will be, nobody knows. But that doesn’t mean other nations won’t be stepping in to try and fill that void as best as they can. Any ground lost is ultimately ground ceded to an aspiring rival power.

To be clear, I think option 2, which is essentially what you outline here, is far more likely.

I do not think it is preferable, but it is the way of the world as I understand it.

Yes, most major issues are global, so there is pressure for a global solution. And the US is the only country who can swing it, currently. Our system is not so different from Republican Rome. We allow our "allies" their own sovereignty, so long as they provide troops and political cover. In time, they may drift closer and demand greater rights within our world order. In a couple centuries, everything we call NATO right now could be US states. As power flows into Washington, who controls it becomes increasingly fraught. Too important to be left to voters, who will be still voting, of course. Factions will form, compete. The mob in DC will be a significant player in world politics. The military will become political, and this will lead at some point to a coup. There may be several before someone makes monarchy stick under some appropriately humble title. By that time, political opposition will be primarily internal.

This is all wild speculation of course.

When you face something ‘systemic’, you need the strong and long reach of the arm of government to be able implement solutions that are 1) unprofitable to do, 2) can’t rely on community consensus to generate the will and 3) need nation state backing - all of which are unworkable on a local level.

Which issues does the US currently face that require a government to have the level of power that the US currently wields that could not be better solved by simply allowing people to act freely?

Maybe we're getting a little far off topic here, but this is touching on one of my bigger general concerns. Many of our problems do seem pretty big. To be specific, I'm talking about things like how much control near-monopoly tech companies and national mega-corps are coming to have over our lives, specifically retail and news and entertainment media, how much influence a united and stable Russia, China, etc are able to wield over world affairs, etc. I'm not so sure that a United States with the Federal gov effectively throttled and the many State governments ascendant would be better able to deal with these issues.

The issue is that the unthrottled FedGov we have now is the thing that is working with near monopoly tech companies to extend even more control of our lives, and by "our" I mean anyone on Earth. A united and stable Russia, China, etc. might be enough to provide counter balance, but I'm not convinced.

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