site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26474 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 15, 2024

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Texas Border Update

The situation I laid out in last week's culture war thread is developing(https://www.themotte.org/post/824/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/178887?context=8#context). Apologize for two top level posts in three days on the same topic, but it's a developing situation and there'll probably be a transnational thursday thread post on it as well(is it the right topic for that? Dunno but I think this is going to need regular updating).

First, rep Henry Cuellar has accused the Texas National Guard in their takeover of Shelby park of causing the deaths of three migrants. It's perhaps worth noting that Henry Cuellar is a firm blue dogger who is conventionally considered the most conservative house democrat; he doesn't support open borders.

Greg Abbott has already responded. Here is the statement from the Texas military department.

Now I have about the same attitude towards "we shouldn't have a border because then people might die trying to cross it" as our resident white nationalists do- and will also point out that there were migrant drowning deaths before the Texas military started putting up razor wire, and that hypothermia is just what happens when you try to swim across the Rio Grande in January during a cold front. But, this was clearly 100% illegal under the injunction against CBP cutting border wire, which specifically allowed CBP to dismantle state border barriers in the event of a medical emergency(which was definitely happening). The refusal to remand migrants into federal custody is also new and I think like 110% illegal.

The federal government has sent this letter. Especially relevant is this paragraph

Texas’s actions are clearly unconstitutional and are actively disrupting the federal government’s operations. We demand that Texas cease and desist its efforts to block Border Patrol’s access in and around the Shelby Park area and remove all barriers to access in the Shelby Park area. If you have not confirmed by the end of day on January 17, 2024, that Texas will cease and desist its efforts to block Border Patrol’s access in and around the Shelby Park area and remove all barriers to access to the U.S.-Mexico border, we will refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate action and consider all other options available to restore Border Patrol’s access to the border.

So Texas is directly nullifying federal law and the federal government has given until EOD Wednesday to stop. My sympathies reside with the state here, but "where does it all end" is what more or less dominates my emotions- Greg Abbott is, as I said in the comments on my previous post, not someone who does things without thinking them through and he is well qualified in constitutional law. He knew this was going to happen and he has plans for what to do about it. Something tells me that plan is not "let federal officials serve a warrant", and I doubt the CBP is willing to use arms to do so- if their union's endorsement of Greg Abbott's initial actions tells me anything it's that they'll refuse orders to potentially shoot at operation lonestar or state personnel- so is the plan to put the federal government between a rock and a hard place to erode their power? If there is a state which benefits from eroding the power of the federal government it'd be Texas, but Abbott numquam iacuit aleam et habuit fidem before.

While it would be a bizarre move for a seasoned politician, perhaps Abbott is just actually trying to do the right thing. Sometimes that means being willing to tolerate some degree of political and legal risk, and it may be that on consideration, he thought the legal proceedings were worth it and that you have to at least try to do the right thing.

From a pragmatic perspective, perhaps he thinks it's feasible to drag out the legal battle until the executive branch is more in his favor sometime in early 2025.

if their union's endorsement of Greg Abbott's initial actions tells me anything it's that they'll refuse orders to potentially shoot at operation lonestar or state personnel

Except, I can easily see this redounding to DC's benefit. If large portions of rank-and-file CBP refuse orders — because they agree with Abbott's position and actually want to do their (theoretical, on paper) jobs of protecting the border — then that gives grounds to the permanent bureaucrats higher up in the structure to fire all those who do so.

Which, first, means a much smaller Border Patrol, and thus less ability to control the border — which is what DC wants; the inability provides a better excuse for their inaction. And secondly, if and when they do bother hiring replacements, they can screen and select them primarily for obedience and ideological alignment. (As one "Zorost" said of the US military at Dreaded Jim's: "People who say the military of today is worse than the military of 2000 don’t know the metrics that GAE values: which military is more likely to obey orders to carpet bomb Omaha, NE?")

Why not replace a CBP that's friendly to attempts to stem the migrant flow with one that's hostile to stemming the flow?

So Abbott takes total control of the border with no one to complain about it? That’s what would happen.

So Abbott takes total control of the border

For how long, though?

with no one to complain about it?

No, I'd expect there'd be a lot of complaining. And probably arrests.

Abbott numquam iacuit aleam et habuit fidem before.

I mean, the Texas Republicans are the obvious spark for an actual Boogaloo (as opposed to a Jan-6-level joke), and I've predicted before that they're reasonably-likely to go open rebellion if the election's fucked with.

Wouldn't have expected something this early, but it's possible Abbott wants to demonstrate to the voters that he'll secede if the election's stolen.

Texas secession is not taken seriously enough for that to be the signal, and the Texas GOP establishment(which Abbott sits roughly at the center of) does not want to be associated with it despite being unwilling to disavow the idea.

Nice! Note that it’s iecit rather than iacuit, and I feel like Latin wouldn’t do two coordinate clauses joined with a conjunction. Maybe a participle phrase, eg Abbotus numquam fideliter credens aleam iecit.

It’s rare in Latin, but I was going for the calque; I think ‘custodente Fidem numquam aleam iecit’ would be the proper classical phrasing stylistically.

I read "habuit fidem" more as keeping faith (as in, acting trustworthily (or so, that's not quite right)) than as believing.

Not sure what the best way to put that in Latin is, but I don't think fideliter credens works, if I'm right in interpreting it that way.

My life was much happier before I learned that Veni, Vidi, Vici could (as speculated for ancient Latin) or does (for Church Latin) sounds more like Wini, Widi, Wicky.

Just diminishes the gravitas of the whole thing doesn't it?

I'm sure many a Romaboo/Grecophile is in denial that their tasteful grey or white sculptures just had the garish paint peel off.

In Ecclesiastical Latin, it sounds the same as it does in English (edit:or rather, I suppose I should say that the common pronunciation of that phrase among English speakers is the modern ecclesiastical Latin one). I agree that the original pronunciation is a severe let-down.

sounds more like Wini, Widi, Wicky

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet …

Vici is related to victory. And the hard c=k is manly.

c===3 is manlier.

So Texas is directly nullifying federal law

Genuine question: Do states like California not do this regularly when it comes to sanctuary cities and enforcement of some drug laws? I was under the impression they got away with that without issue. Why should this be any different?

Marijuana legalization and sanctuary city laws are technically just a prohibition on state personnel enforcing federal laws or assisting in that enforcement- red states have the same thing with second amendment sanctuaries, it just doesn’t work as well because of different enforcement structures.

California hasn’t attempted to physically prevent the DEA or ICE from enforcing federal law within California, it’s merely declined to assist.

California hasn’t attempted to physically prevent the DEA or ICE from enforcing federal law within California, it’s merely declined to assist.

California, maybe, but Massachusetts got pretty close.

Can you please translate your Latin?

"Abbott has never thrown the dice and had faith"- it's a reference to both the rubicon and (appropriately for Texas)a country song.

fidelem (faithful person) → fidem (faith)

Edited, thanks

Shoulda just gone with the English, boyo.

The Latin phrase "numquam iacuit aleam et habuit fidelem" translates to English as "never has thrown the dice and had a loyal [companion/follower]."

(I used an LLM for this mods please don't ban me)

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