site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30069 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 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.

That's still kinda the point, isn't it? Feinstein wanted to be armed to protect herself, while at the same time working to prevent others from being able to be armed to protect themselves. Granted, she had a reasonable basis to anticipate that she might need that protection, but it's not as if other normal citizens who also want protection are being unreasonable.

I'm all for gun control, but it seems entirely fair to point to the hypocrisy here.

OP claimed that she was allowed to carry a gun because she was "important", but in fact it is because she faced an unusual threat.

  • -13

She felt she faced an unusual threat. In reality, some dork like Kyle Rittenhouse has had more credible threats against him in the last two years than she has faced in a career.

And if so, I am perfectly fine with Kyle Rittenhouse getting a concealed weapon permit.

The quote you provided does not appear to establish that. It says she decided to arm herself in response to the bomb threat, not that she was allowed to arm herself because of it.

And personally it's the decision to arm herself that I see as hypocritical, regardless of the licensing regime. If she didn't believe the government could provide adequate protection to a goddamn Senator, it's a bit rich for her to insist that normal people rely on it.

One can believe that Protection(Senator) < Threat(Senator) && Protection(Random_Citizen) > Threat(Random_Citizen) and not be hypocritical.

I have absolutely no idea what this means and wish you would just use normal language.

He’s saying “Random citizens are adequately protected by the state, but senators who have previously been targeted for death may not be” isn’t hypocritical.

One can believe that Senators face a relatively high threat compared to random citizens and so need the protection more and not be hypocritical.

I suppose he is not talking about STDs, but it is possible.

She of course was not a Senator at the time. And, normal people are not personally targeted by terrorist organizations.

If the law at the time required good cause for a concealed carry permit, it is not hypocritical to get a permit if you personally have good cause therefor. Is it hypocritical to think that higher income taxes rates would be sound policy, yet to take advantage of a tax deduction to which you are entitled under current law? I don’t see how it is.

Is it hypocritical to think that higher income taxes rates would be sound policy, yet to take advantage of a tax deduction to which you are entitled under current law?

Yes it is. That is one of the few areas in the law where you can unilaterally impose your preferred policy on yourself. This is very unlike the "Libertarian Meeting at the Public Library" meme. Those libertarians can't not pay library taxes by not using the room, you can pay higher taxes whenever you want!

"But anti_dan," you say, "I don't want higher taxes just for me, we need it on everyone to do XXX." But that's just a self-checkmate you are admitting paying taxes sucks and makes people poorer.

Apologies re the Senator thing - I had heard at some point that she was "first elected in the 70s" and assumed this meant to the Senate. My bad on that point.

But on this point:

If the law at the time required good cause for a concealed carry permit,

Did it? I haven't heard of any such provision in the law and I haven't been able to find one with a bit of googling. It seems like currently it's a matter of discretion for the county sheriff, and I haven't been able to find anything saying that this has changed since the 70s. Pre-Mulford Act was clearly different, but that was 1967.

And while I'll grant you that normal people are not (usually) personally targeted by terrorists with the exception of e.g. Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and so forth, they do get personally targeted by violence! California has something like 200,000 assaults per year and I expect most of those are personally targeted. I never heard Feinstein saying it was important for e.g. women with violent ex-partners to be able to get guns, nor did I see her proposing legislation to that effect. So yes, I do think she was hypocritical.

Again, I agree with her on the merits. Bad guys get guns off good guys with guns - there's no realistic way to ensure that all the safe and none of the dangerous people are armed, so effectively everyone should be disarmed. But I have no respect for anyone who refuses to live by the rules they set for others.

Did it?

Sometimes the best way to find the text of old laws is to search the case law section of Google Scholar. That's how I found this:

Permission to carry a concealed weapon may be sought, as petitioners did here, by an application under sections 12050 and 12051 of the Penal Code. Those sections read as follows:

Section 12050: "(a) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of the county, may issue to such person a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm for any period of time not to exceed one year from the date of the license.

Salute v. Pitchess, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1976)

California has something like 200,000 assaults per year and I expect most of those are personally targeted

It is my understanding that the vast majority of assaults arise from sudden disputes. Of the remainder, the vast majority are crimes in which the victim is chosen more or less at random. That is a far cry from being targeted in a premeditated fashion, as a specific individual.

But I have no respect for anyone who refuses to live by the rules they set for others.

Again, where is your evidence that she did that? Where is your evidence that she ever tried to avoid compliance with a law that she passed! And, do you even know what her position on gun control was at the time that she got the permit? I can certainly imagine that she might have become a proponent of gun control later, after George Moscone and Harvey Milk were murdered, with a handgun, by what seemed to be a responsible citizen.

Edit: Or, after the 101 California St shooting

Alright, I think I'll just concede this point. I don't know enough about Feinstein's history and the timeline of all these things to say with confidence that it was a case of inconsistency and not evolution in perspective. And I don't really care enough to keep reading up more about what a dead woman used to think.

Having said that, I still don't think it puts you in the clear as a legislator if you build in exceptions for a narrow class of people like yourself. It's obviously better than actively flouting the law, but if the law allowed elected officials to drive above the speed limit I would still be disdainful of those who did so.

But no, I don't have proof that that is definitely exactly what Feinstein was doing so I'll just drop it and let you take the win on this one.

I still don't think it puts you in the clear as a legislator if you build in exceptions for a narrow class of people like yourself.

Again, I really don't understand why you are saying this. Feinstein was never a CA state legislator, and besides, the state law was in place at least as early as 1969, since it was discussed in Galvan v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. 2d 851 (1969). And, of course, Feinstein did not become a member of the class to which the exception applies (ie, people with good cause to carry a concealed weapon) until after the law was passed. So, not only do you "don't have proof that that is definitely exactly what Feinstein was doing", you have enormous evidence of the opposite.

Can't it be both? She faced an unusual threat but she was allowed to carry a weapon due to her prominence? If she was a business owner who faced a similar threat would she have been granted the permit? Were other people facing similar threats granted permits? It'd be interesting to review the permit applications to make an assessment but I don't think they're PAI. Feinstein says she voluntarily gave up her permit after she decided NWLF wasn't a threat to her (along with her cute little story about melting it into the cross for the Pope) but it rings a little hollow considering she had a tax-payer funded armed detail for her protection at that point.

IIRC she’s literally the only CHL permit that her county ever granted, so this isn’t a situation similar to, say, Italy where people who legitimately have a heightened need for security can get a license to carry concealed weapons but it requires a legitimate heightened need for security(and my understanding is that this is how European ‘may-issue’ CHL regimes actually work in practice, as opposed to US may issue regimes. There is probably a lesson there in why the red tribe doesn’t trust gun control).

Of course it can be both. But where is the actual evidence for the claim that "importance" is a causal factor, especially in general? Because that was the claim: that "it is a matter of routine" for advocates for gun control to have concealed carry licenses.

Your reply to TIRM on down was about Feinstein, so that's what I addressed in my comment.

As far as evidence, we'd need to be able to take a look at who's getting permits in CA but that data isn't FOIA-able due to privacy issues. There was a leak a while back but it looks like that dashboard is now offline.

Well, yes, my reply was about Feinstein because that was the only evidence that OP provided for their claim.

Po-tae-to, Po-tah-to.

Normal people have to deal with threats too. I don't see why the threat Feinstein faced, and her moral right to defend herself, is contingent on the type of threat. All I see is an important person having the sorts of threats they face being classified as "special", while the threats normal people deal with aren't.

No, normal people are not individually targeted by terrorist groups, especially not groups that send several bombs to her and other SF supervisors and are affiliated with organizations which assassinate school superintendents in nearby cities

I'm pretty close to a gun rights absolutist, but it's worth mentioning that being armed isn't actually a very good defense against assassination. As you point out in the first link, bombing is a common means of assassination; shooting bombs sounds cool, but probably won't do much to prevent a car-bomb from taking out a target. In the event that an assassin does engage with a firearm, a competent one is likely to choose the Oswald approach of firing an accurate, high-powered rifle. Carrying a pistol isn't going to do much against someone with a 6.5 Creedmoor sighted in at 200 yards, and the accuracy at that distance is pinpoint.

To the extent that firearms are useful as a self-defense tool, I would guess that they have at least as much utility for a convenient store worker as a politician.

But the issue is less the utility of the tool than the specificity of the threat. Moreover, Marcus Foster was killed with a handgun, not by a bomb or high-powered rifle.

I'd go so far as to say that a personal firearm is significantly less useful to protect yourself from assassins and terrorists, as your personal firearm has zero intimidation value against an ideological and/or crazy assassin. The vast majority of defensive gun uses do not feature the gun actually being fired; in most the criminal gives up after the gun is brandished and he realizes the citizen is armed. The average political assassin is figuring on dying in the process to begin with, the average carjacker is not.

That said, in casual conversation, I've said that if I were a presidential family member with Secret Service protection, I would insist on having a personal sidearm. Whatever training I have to take, whatever test I have to pass. Not because I'd imagine being particularly useful, but because I wouldn't want to die crouching and hiding uselessly. I'd rather, as a matter of personal pride, die at least pretending to do something useful. So I can see a motivation to carry beyond actual effectiveness against assassins.

Completely and totally irrelevant to my point. You just further buy into the notion that special people face special threats and deserve special treatment, which I reject in it's totality.

No, I am noting that that particular person at that particular time faced a particular threat from a particular group. If she did not show good cause for a concealed weapon permit, then no one can, so you seem to be advocating that no one should have been issued a concealed weapon permit

Are you purposely trying to bait me?

OP pointed out that virtually no one in San Francisco can get a conceal carry permit, and that it's rank hypocrisy for Feinstein to have gotten one. To further their point, asking bing how many CCP have been issued in San Francisco

San Francisco has issued only 11 concealed carry permits over the last decade. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department is known for granting virtually no concealed carry permits, and received only two applications in 2017 and none in 2018. No permits were granted either year, and there are no active permits.

And you proceed to completely ignore the point about hypocrisy or special treatment and instead harp on how Feinstein really deserved a CCP. I keep making the point that she's no more deserving, morally, than many of victims and future victims of violent crime in San Francisco.

And you return that I'm advocating that no one should be issued a concealed weapon permit.

Sir, I say in all serious. Are you distracted and not paying full attention to the arguments you are engaging in? Are you getting a blowjob under the table right now? Is this the other window you keep open while you chain smoke and game in a cyber cafe? What is your fucking deal?

OP pointed out that virtually no one in San Francisco can get a conceal carry permit, and that it's rank hypocrisy for Feinstein to have gotten one.

No OP made a causal claim -- that she got one because she was "important" -- and I merely pointed that there seems to have been another reason.

asking bing how many CCP have been issued in San Francisco

No one doubts that it was difficult to get CCP in SF during the decade ending in 2017. But that is not the point, and besides note that Feinstein did not have a permit at that time either.

  • I keep making the point that she's no more deserving, morally, than many of victims and future victims of violent crime in San Francisco.

And I keep making the point that that claim is based on a misstatement of the facts.

You mean to imply that a random person has the same chance of getting JFKd as JFK, assuming equal security?

I'm saying a random person has just as much moral right to defend themselves from the threats they are likely to face as a "special" person from the "special" threats they are likely to face. A special person might risk assassination, a non-special person risks getting randomly (or pseudo-randomly) being violently and potentially lethally victimized in other ways. You have a moral right to defend yourself from all of them. Targeted assassination isn't the one special category you have a moral right to defend yourself from.

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