site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27234 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

Seem pretty uncharitable, maybe you mean just DC conservatives? Or city conservatives?

I've never lived in an area more dense than "suburban". And I can say I've never had a neighbor against gun rights. I've had plenty of liberal and democrat voting neighbors. Most of them have owned guns.

This issue has always seemed like a "rural vs urban" thing. Party lines have also tended to break down along those lines lately. But if I had to take a bet, I'd say the gun rights debate breakdown is better characterized by rural vs urban than it is by republican vs democrat.

I'll say for the Supreme Court: if Neil Gorsuch can be austisticly literal when it comes to the CRA, but doesn't apply that same literalism to the 2A, it's a strong sign of what he wants to get done.

I'm still waiting on the Supreme Court to strike down the blatantly unconstitutional magazine bans and "assault weapon" bans that have been popular in the last few years.

He was not being "autistically literal." He was applying the usual rule of statutory construction:

This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. . . . Most notably, the statute prohibits employers from taking certain actions “because of ” sex. And, as this Court has previously explained, “the ordinary meaning of ‘because of ’ is ‘by reason of’ or ‘on account of.’” . . . What did “discriminate” mean in 1964? As it turns out, it meant then roughly what it means today: “To make a difference in treatment or favor (of one as compared with others).” Webster’s New International Dictionary 745 (2d ed. 1954). To “discriminate against” a person, then, would seem to mean treating that individual worse than others who are similarly situated. "

Re Constitutional adjudication, the rule is somewhat different: the question is what entire clauses mean, not individual terms.* (Which is why the "no law" in the First Amendment does not literally mean "no.")

*Re the Second Amendment, "[t]he Courts of Appeals [must] ascertain the original scope of the right based on its historical meaning."

They can be treated with charity when I can buy and carry a gun. Or at least they're not declaring victory when in fact I still can't buy a gun. Until then I'll judge them harshly as deserved.

I mean I guess my complaint is less about charity than accuracy. You seem wrong about your assessment. I guess I'm curious if I'm missing something big or you just wanted to shit on conservatives. Sounds like the latter though.

You're missing that when push comes to shove, conservatives will not push the fight, and will side with the institutions. gattsuru mentioned above "refuse to be ruled". Well, suppose one were to do that by violating one or more of these gun regulations. And one were to get caught, and the state to come down on you like a ton of bricks. What would a conservative who previously advised "refuse to be ruled" say about that? I'm fairly sure it would be something along the lines of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Conservatives who can get guns because they're in a community where guns are a thing and they can jump through any hoops the state puts in their way anyway treat gun rights like a sort of intellectual game; they want to make the point that they have the right to keep and bear arms. But they don't give a shit about it being enforced in other communities that are more hostile to gun rights. That's why, for instance, there's been no move to challenge the interstate purchase rules.

Do you live in a large city? This is the only thing I can think of that would prompt this level of annoyance.

I own guns, I consider myself very pro second amendment, I don't know or honestly care that much about how difficult it is to get a gun in a city. My solution to them having shitty gun laws is to not go there. I'm also not in the habit of picking political fights for other people.

I'd love it if you explained to my wife that me owning guns is actually an intellectual pursuit. Right now she is under the mistaken impression that I'm just a big boy with disposable income and I'm buying big boy toys.

I live in suburban New Jersey.

My solution to them having shitty gun laws is to not go there. I'm also not in the habit of picking political fights for other people.

The left wasn't satisfied to have gay marriage only in their strongholds. They weren't even satisfied when there was a single clerk holding out. And they got their way, because Supreme Court decisions for the left count. Conservatives, on the other hand, have left prospective gun owners and those who wish to carry out in the cold everywhere but their own strongholds. They got a Supreme Court decision or three, but they don't count for spit in the real world; it turns out that according to the appeals courts, every restriction on guns an anti-gun jurisdiction engages in is OK according to Bruen. And rather than take those cases and reverse them, the Supreme Court took a case from the Fifth Circuit where a Federal gun restriction was ruled against -- presumably to decide that indeed, a simple restraining order of the sort handed out like candy by judges is sufficient to revoke someone's gun rights.

Well yeah, that is a shit state to be in for guns.

Maybe try and live in one of the non gray areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_sanctuary

Well yeah, that is a shit state to be in for guns.

And yet conservatives call it victory.

I'd love it if you explained to my wife that me owning guns is actually an intellectual pursuit. Right now she is under the mistaken impression that I'm just a big boy with disposable income and I'm buying big boy toys.

A themotte.org meetup in your backyard, for the purpose of convincing your wife that owning guns makes your family very intellectual and sophisticated sounds like a worthy endeavor.

Haha, that would probably have the opposite of the intended effect. I'd not be opposed to a meetup in northern virginia if anyone is around though.

I'd mostly want to do it for the look on her face. "I'm sorry, you flew in from WHERE for all this?", but to be honest I don't know if I could make it. This shit was easier when I was in my 20's.

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