site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29677 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

I think it matters in the sense that legitimacy matters. If we’re really going to deny opposing parties the right to be on the ballot then it’s really stretching the truth to claim that we hold fair and free elections. And in my view the only legitimate reason that a group that files to be on the ballot should be denied is that they’ve been convicted of a felony within the last 5 years.

Elections are already widely distrusted, with a sizable chunk of the GOP believing that Biden did not win fairly. This is not going to restore their trust in ballots. And when a big enough chunk of the electorate doesn’t believe they’re being allowed to compete fairly in elections, they abandon elections for more direct action.

If we’re really going to deny opposing parties the right to be on the ballot

Just to clarify, you understand that he's barred from the Republican primary ballot, not the General Election ballot, right?

  • -17

You understand this rationale will later be used to keep him off the ballot in the general election?

It might. Things are happening fast.

There is zero argument that the general is different from the primary so if he runs for the general the court would need to make the same holding.

Do you think this meaningfully changes anything? Some judges just appointed thenselves arbiters of who can and can't run. Now we're quibbling about specifics.

They are the arbiters of the thing they ruled on. That's their job.

To me there is a double jeopardy problem. Trump was already tried for this shit and wasn’t convicted by his peers (ie the senate).

This particular problem isn't one; double jeopardy doesn't apply to impeachment.

Are we sure? I don’t think it has ever been litigated but seems to me the whole impeachment and conviction process is clearly modeled after a trial. Trump was basically tried on these facts and acquitted.

It is not a slam dunk by any stretch but an interesting issue to think through

Stronger claim against Smith since there facing imprisonment.

And in my view the only legitimate reason that a group that files to be on the ballot should be denied is that they’ve been convicted of a felony within the last 5 years.

That seems like one of the least legitimate reasons to deny access to the ballot. "Convicted of a felony" is just another way of saying "the people currently in power, some of whom have explicit allegiances to other political parties, have determined that they think you really, really suck."

If we're going to restrict ballot access based off anything, it should be popularity, based solely on the idea that spending ballot space on someone who is unlikely to win is a waste of resources.

At least a conviction requires a trial by jury. Biden can order the Justice Department to indict anyone he wants, indictments are not convictions.

"Convicted of a felony" is just another way of saying "the people currently in power,

Welcome to the Prison Abolitionist movement, we have pamphlets.

If 'convicted of a felony' is enough reason to be kept in prison and used as slave labor for your entire natural life, it's enough reason to not be on a Primary ballot.

I'm perfectly happy saying it's not enough reason for either of those things, but I will be a stickler about consistency on this one. Anyone who wants to treat the law and courts as reliable arbiters of Justice on a Monday had better do the same thing on a Tuesday, or else expect a finger-wagging.

  • -12

Barring someone from running for office is not necessarily a lighter punishment than putting someone in prison. When you bar an individual from running, you are not only punishing that one person, but you are also punishing an unbounded number of people who would have otherwise voted for him.

Additionally, different kinds of transgressions disqualify you from different kinds of privileges. It's entirely consistent to say that plagiarism disqualifies you from professorships but not from playing professional baseball, while placing insider bets disqualifies you from playing professional baseball but not from being a professor. Similarly, one can be okay with murderers appearing on the presidential ballot while they sit in prison, provided they are popular enough. It would be entirely consistent to believe that committing murder disqualifies you from not being in prison, but that the only thing that disqualifies you from being on the ballot is not being popular enough to make your appearance worth the overhead.

(That said, I have a very dim view of the law and courts and have generally pro-prison-abolitionist views, so there's that.)

Isolated demand for rigor.

Right, that's what I should have said. They're applying an isolated demand for rigor on the concept of 'convicted of a felony' when it's their guy getting convicted.

No, I'm questioning why "convicted of a felony" should be connected to "should not appear on a ballot". I firmly believe that criminal background should have no implication on political privileges. Typically this comes up in the context of voting rights for felons (which is left-coded) but I believe the exact same thing when it's a right-aligned cause.

In fact it's not connected to appearing on a ballot, convicted felons can get elected to any office they want.

There's a specific narrow provision about Officers of the State being barred from election if they commit the specific crime of Insurrection, which is what's being used here. I think it dates to the Civil War or something.

The comment I originally responded to proposed the following restriction:

And in my view the only legitimate reason that a group that files to be on the ballot should be denied is that they’ve been convicted of a felony within the last 5 years.

The status quo, where Eugene Debs can run for President from prison, is my desired state of things.

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