site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27236 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.

Apparently not if I missed Obama trying to prevent the transfer of power to Trump after the election! Can you give me any more details about it?

  • -14

They did extra legal things to harm the Trumps administration ability to do anything. General Flynn having to answer Logan Act violation issues is a big deal to me since no one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act so the fbi attacking him for it was extremely extra-legal.

I seem to recall this big controversy about the crossfire hurricane thing.

And you know that SCOTUS case in 2000.

There is a big difference between using recount laws for the purpose for which they were intended (even if those recount laws later turn out to be unconstitutional) and filing lies with the court. Neither Bush nor Gore was ever accused of filing briefs containing false factual claims - the key facts of Bush v Gore (that recounting punch card ballots accurately was sufficiently difficult that there wasn't time for an accurate statewide recount before the electoral College deadline, and that the margin of error of the original count exceeded Bush's margin of victory) were never disputed.

Trump's State court challenges to the 2020 election are criminal if and only if they were based on knowingly false factual claims. Both the Federal and Georgia indictments promise to bring evidence that they were.

The electoral counts of 2001, 2017, and 2021 (and probably a few others I've missed) all included members of congress making motions to dismiss the electoral votes of entire states to change the outcome of the election. To their credit, none of the standing VPs entertained these motions, but "tried to officially overthrow the counted votes" is a bar we passed quite a while ago without much fanfare: none of the representatives making these motions saw consequences from doing so.

Making frivolous objections to electoral votes based on false claims of electoral irregularities (which wouldn't include 2001, but would probably include 2005 and definitely include 2017 and 2021) is bad and the congresscritters who did it should feel bad. But they are protected from prosecution by the Speech and Debate clause, so this isn't a case of selective prosecution. The House should probably have censured the Reps who made frivolous objections in 2017 - although most of them never got the chance to make false allegations on the record, so it would presumably only have been for disorderly conduct.

Incidentally, the VP doesn't have any discretion whether to entertain an objection - under the rules at the time, he has to accept it and allow a debate if it is supported by at least one Rep and at least one Senator (as in 2005 and 2021), and can't accept it if it is only supported by Reps (as in 2001 and 2017). (It now requires a fifth of the members of each house to force a debate on an objection).

Tell me more about crossfire hurricane. What did they do to keep Obama in the White House and prevent Trump becoming president?

  • -13

Hey you can “own” your property but we the government get its fruits and we decide what you do with the property. But that isn’t communism since you know you own the property.

The claim was that he backed Hillary's bid, no? If we narrow it to Obama going for a third term then clearly not.

I'm not aware of any particular action on the part of Trump in Georgia so opening an investigation into a political rival on less than solid basis is at least equivalent.

Ok, what did Obama do after the election to try to make Clinton succeed him instead of Trump?

I don't know about that, but I do know it's very funny to watch the clip of Obama on SNL doing literal mic drop about 'Trump will never be president' and then the media shots of him in the White House meeting Trump (instead of Hillary) to do the handover of power.

It makes me laugh, at least.

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