site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28317 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Even in its current state, this statue holds together better than the Lost Cause mythos. It’s more defensible than the Confederacy, too.

I don't know. Personally, I consider myself a rather patriotic American, and I have no particular sadness that it remains a single country, and no particular fondness for the idea of the Confederacy. In general, I'm of the opinion that while political division is sometimes necessary, union is preferable because we really are stronger together when we peacefully work out our differences.

That said, I find it amusing at a principled level that modern neoliberalism doesn't seem to have met a separatist group it doesn't like: see the cause of Scottish secession, 20th century ex-colonial independence movements, and more recent splits like Kosovo and South Sudan, or even supporting an independent Ukraine against Russia. There's a lot of political momentum behind the idea of self determination -- as long as you're not from Virginia or Georgia: American jurisdiction is indivisible for any reason. One could point to slavery as the key point of contention, but that rule isn't exactly applied consistently: France's interests in North Africa were originally justified as ending the Barbary slave trade, and ongoing human trafficking in the region to this day apparently doesn't justify external political control (which I personally agree with!).

Under my principles, I'd rather maintain the US as it is, but I think one can make a reasonable argument about "Biden's 120,000 active-duty troops at Fort Benning Moore occupying Georgia" that comes across a reasonable fraction as convincing as the Chinese in Tibet, US troops in Afghanistan, or any number of similar cases that the world seems to agree are morally-questionable "occupation".

That said, I find it amusing at a principled level that modern neoliberalism doesn't seem to have met a separatist group it doesn't like

No, that's not really true. Secessions are very rare, compared to how many secessionist movements there are; as a rule, the acceptance of a secession requires the acceptance of the country which the original seceeding country originally belonged to, and as one might imagine this doesn't happen that often. Somaliland hasn't been granted independence even though it has in practice functioned as a country for decades and is commonly seen as vastly more functional than Somalia. Why? Because Somalia hasn't granted it independence.

Yes, there's a counterargument - Kosovo - but it's the expection, not the rule, and the Western acceptance of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence (which most countries of the world haven't accepted) was predicated on the idea that Serbia had been ready to implement an actual genocide there. The ex-colonial countries and South Sudan were different, since their independence was granted by the country's original owner, and Ukraine is not even in the same category, since the country it seceeded from - Soviet Union - doesn't even exist. (The idea of Ukraine as some sort of a secessionist entity from Russia requires one to purchase into Russian nationalist narratives generally.)

Here's how EU - certainly an organization that could be seen as one of the main pillars of modern neoliberalism - reacted to the vote of independence in Catalonia.

Scottish secession

British 'neoliberals', however you want to define them, mostly don't like Scottish independence. Blair, Cameron etc., but broadly there is no decisive left-right political valence to it. Unionists run the gamut of the British and Scottish political spectrum, from Andrew Neil to Brown to George Galloway.

One could point to slavery as the key point of contention, but that rule isn't exactly applied consistently:

The point isn't just the South wasn't entitled self-determination because of slavery - it's that there was nothing to secession except slavery. There was no other real grievance or basis for 'national feeling' than that institution.

Georgia

They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility.

The South seceded because they were tired of the North ignoring all of their agreements and reneging on their established constitution. Yes, the North defected due to slavery, and the South seceded due to that defection. There were also free trade vs protectionist arguments raised where the North was being subsidized while the South was left to fend for itself, on the federal governments dime.

The South seceded because they were tired of the North ignoring all of their agreements and reneging on their established constitution. Yes, the North defected due to slavery, and the South seceded due to that defection. There were also free trade vs protectionist arguments raised where the North was being subsidized while the South was left to fend for itself, on the federal governments dime.

It's interesting how you frame this. You really want to deny that the South seceded over slavery, but rather, it was because the North was being ungentlemanly in not upholding their agreements. Even if we accept that latter claim (which is not really true, North and South both tried to scuttle previous agreements whenever they had the leverage to do so), it is still the South seceding over slavery. The agreements they most objected to being violated were agreements about allowing slavery in new territories, agreements that would have increased the abolitionist vote, agreements about literally suppressing abolitionist speech, and agreements about returning fugitive slaves. "The North defected on the slavery issue and the South seceded because of that" is just a clever way to rephrase "The South seceded over slavery."

North was being ungentlemanly

I would say dishonest, violent, radical, unconstitutional, and illegal rather than ungentlemanly.

it is still the South seceding over slavery

It is the South withdrawing her consent to the Union, and each of her Free and Independent Sovereign States deciding to discard one Union and to form another. And the reason was not because of slavery, but because of federalism and the threat to that status as Free and Independent Sovereign States. Sure enough, after the Civil War, nobody really considered any of the states either free or independent or sovereign, so I'd say they had the right outlook, correctly predicted what their opponents wanted, and correctly resisted it when it became obvious that conflict could not be avoided.

I would say dishonest, violent, radical, unconstitutional, and illegal rather than ungentlemanly.

Well, you can say that, but given that the South literally wanted it to be a capital crime to advocate for abolitionism, I do not believe that they really had much regard for Constitutionality. As for "violence," there was a contemporaneous cartoon about that.

It is the South withdrawing her consent to the Union, and each of her Free and Independent Sovereign States deciding to discard one Union and to form another.

I understand you want "Should states have the right to secede?" to be completely orthogonal to "Should states have the right to maintain slavery?" but every objection to federalism and "sovereignty" was about slavery. In the abstract, sure, there are many interesting arguments to be had about whether the Constitution itself was a betrayal of the original Articles of Confederation. But while I used to buy "states rights" as a legitimate (if misguided) defense for the South, once you start reading history, you realize that the only states rights they really cared enough about to secede over were slavery. Note that one of their core objections was that Northern states would not enforce laws like the Fugitive Slave Act within Northern territories.

you realize that the only states rights they really cared enough about to secede over were slavery

Which is why they didn't agree to the Constitution until they had assurances that it was under their control. I view that they are right in that assessment, you seem to think that they should have just rolled over and quit.

Note that one of their core objections was that Northern states would not enforce laws like the Fugitive Slave Act within Northern territories.

If Massachusetts didn't want to return fugitive slaves, they shouldn't have agreed to the Constitution that requires that of them.

Article IV

Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Making Abolition punishable by death is just as unconstitutional as refusing to return fugitive slaves, by the words of the one and only constitution. Only one side was able to impose their unconstitutional vision on the other.

Which is why they didn't agree to the Constitution until they had assurances that it was under their control. I view that they are right in that assessment, you seem to think that they should have just rolled over and quit.

I am not making an argument about whether or not they were morally or legally in the right. What I am disputing is that they didn't secede over slavery. They did. You're free to argue that they should have been allowed to secede, and you're free to argue that slavery should have remained legal, but that isn't the argument here. I'm just refuting the "states rights, it wasn't about slavery" claim.

Only one side was able to impose their unconstitutional vision on the other.

This is not true. The whole point of the series of (ultimately failed) compromises that led to the Civil War was that both sides were forced to agree to laws they didn't really want to obey, and both sides frequently played fast and loose with those agreements.

North ignoring all of their agreements

This is just credulously swallowing Southern propaganda whole, on several counts. Apart from the trivial point of 'ignoring their agreements about what' (i.e. slavery), there are several things to say here. Firstly, as Potter the 'compromise' of 1850 was never really so - it was in fact an armistice, with both sides ready to press an advantage if they felt they had it. Nothing wrong with this, it's just politics, but the point is both sides acted fairly similarly. If we want to talk about ignoring agreements, what about Dred Scott, which Southerners were only too happy to celebrate, or the attempts to advance the Lecompton constitution, the latter of which made a mockery of democracy and any pretence at popular sovereignty.

The fact is that the highest priority of most of the South - or the planter elite that dominated politics at any rate - was the continuation of slavery, and 'constitutional' government important mostly insofar as it protected that institution.

There are so many relevant quotes here, but perhaps John W. Overall summed up the Southern mindset best.

"The people of the South," says a contemporary, "are not fighting for slavery, but for independence."

Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new fangled heresy---a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland.

Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the ground work.

France's interests in North Africa were originally justified as ending the Barbary slave trade,

I understand that the early US made military efforts against this as well, if I'm not mistaken.

It was a major pain for European states, and already Charles V tried to put an end to it in in 1535.

I'm upset that there haven't been more movies made about it. America's second major war was against Muslims to stop slavery... of white Americans. There's was a lot to expore and comment on post-9/11 and post BLM.

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