site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30045 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.

An effective strategy is an effective strategy, regardless of whether the goal is conservative or liberal or something else.

Technically yes, but the strategy 'violent overthrow of the government' is rarely claimed to further conservative goals in practice. Conservatives are unusually fond of strategies that don't do that, oppose it, even. Your argument was one of those. Hence, conservative strategy.

It was a ban (actually, a partial ban) on a handful of countries associated with terrorism.

Since when is 'coming from a country associated with terrorism' a valid reason to insidiously discriminate within a progressive framework?

Hence, conservative strategy.

I think you are conflating two different meanings of "conservative." One can employ conservative, incremental strategies in pursuit of radical goals.

Since when is 'coming from a country associated with terrorism' a valid reason to insidiously discriminate within a progressive framework?

  1. OP is talking about an anti-Muslim proposal, not an anti-terrorist proposal.
  2. Who says progressives supported the travel ban?

Edit: And see this poll from around the same time :

Eight-right percent of Americans - and 87 percent of American Christians - think the government should treat all potential immigrants the same, regardless of religion.

And

In principle, three in four Americans would oppose a ban on all Muslims from entering the U.S. – including large majorities of Democrats (92 percent) and independents (75 percent), and a slight majority of Republicans (55 percent).

That is despite 45 pct supporting the specific ban in question.

OP is talking about an anti-Muslim proposal, not an anti-terrorist proposal.

Pure technicality. Trump's ban didn't ban literal practicing terrorists. If I just couch what is effectively a muslim ban in terms of an 'anti-terrorist proposal', that makes it ok?

But, it was not an effective Muslim ban. It did not apply to the countries where 90+ pct of the world's Muslims live. And see my edit re poll respondents distinguishing between the specific ban and a hypothetical actual Muslim ban.

The polls are contradictory, people are just saying general things that sound good, their beliefs are incoherent. Looks to me like some cosmetic adjustments would be enough to pass the muslim ban under another name. That would be the recommended strategy based on the facts of the case, from a politician's pov.

People don’t want to feel like they’re banning an entire group or religion, even if they effectively do. Of course it’s complete horseshit on principle and I despise it. Not least because making it clear exactly why they are not welcome is part of my strategy to help the muslim world (and the rest with it). This is enabling, and allows this sort of pious nonsense to fester:

And despite strong language before the election by the Trump campaign about the threat of violence from radical Islam, most Americans don’t believe that the Islamic religion as a whole is more violent than other religions.

people are just saying general things that sound good. . . . People don’t want to feel like they’re banning an entire group or religion,

Doesn't that rather reinforce my point about values?

even if they effectively do.

You keep making this claim about the executive order, without any evidence, and despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Could you expand on why you (or people) think the trump ban is justified under 'core values' principles, but not the muslim ban using a similar loophole?

I can't speak for other people, but as I have noted, the Trump ban was not a religion-based ban. It wasn't even really a blanket ban on "people from countries that support terrorism." Here is how the Supreme Court described the Trump ban:

The Proclamation (as its title indicates) sought to improve vetting procedures by identifying ongoing deficiencies in the information needed to assess whether nationals of particular countries present “public safety threats.” §1(a). To further that purpose, the Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate. The Proclamation described how foreign states were selected for inclusion based on the review undertaken pursuant to EO–2. . . . Following the 50-day period [of the review], the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries—Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—remained deficient in terms of their risk profile and willingness to provide requested information. The Acting Secretary recommended that the President impose entry restrictions on certain nationals from all of those countries except Iraq. §§1(g), (h). She also concluded that although Somalia generally satisfied the information sharing component of the baseline standards, its “identity management deficiencies” and “significant terrorist presence” presented special circumstances justifying additional limitations. She therefore recommended entry limitations for certain nationals of that country. . . . The Proclamation imposed a range of restrictions that vary based on the “distinct circumstances” in each of the eight countries. Ibid. For countries that do not cooperate with the United States in identifying security risks (Iran, North Korea, and Syria), the Proclamation suspends entry of all nationals, except for Iranians seeking nonimmigrant student and exchange-visitor visas. For countries that have information-sharing deficiencies but are nonetheless “valuable counterterrorism partner[s]” (Chad, Libya, and Yemen), it restricts entry of nationals seeking immigrant visas and nonimmigrant business or tourist visas. §§2(a)(i), (c)(i), (g)(i). Because Somalia generally satisfies the baseline standards but was found to present special risk factors, the Proclamation suspends entry of nationals seeking immigrant visas and requires additional scrutiny of nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas. §2(h)(ii). And for Venezuela, which refuses to cooperate in information sharing but for which alternative means are available to identify its nationals, the Proclamation limits entry only of certain government officials and their family members on nonimmigrant business or tourist visas. §2(f)(ii). . . . Upon completion of the first such review period, the President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of Homeland Security, determined that Chad had sufficiently improved its practices, and he accordingly lifted restrictions on its nationals.

And, even if it were a blanket ban on "people from countries that support terrorism," there is a vast difference between a) these people might be dangerous because they are from countries that support terrorism; and b) "these people might be dangerous because they are Muslims."

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