site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26707 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Romans never would have let millions of migrants enter their territory and use their resources.

...they did.

In any event, it's not really clear why we should consider the Romans a model for behavior.

So often a debate does come down to the definition of a word.

"Invasion" rhetoric is classic Motte-and-Bailey equivocation. Nativists want to borrow the alarming connotations of the word to hype up support for radical measures, then, when their critics point out that there's a slight difference between people making dodgy asylum claims and an armed force sacking El Paso, fall back on "invasion has other meanings". If Latinos are "invading" like Japanese tourists, the claim becomes a lot less exciting.

...they did.

When? If you are talking about the resettlement of the German tribes inside imperial borders, they only did that after smashing them in battle and disarming them. Sometimes they would skip the smashing in battle bit, but there would always at least be a negotiated settlement before the tribes were allowed to move into the empire uncontested. Towards the end of the empire they stopped disarming the Germans, but that was definitely not by choice, it was because the empire was falling apart.

they only did that after smashing them in battle and disarming them

Check

I think it’s a lot more than a motte-Bailey.

It’s also a legal term to deal with a real issue. So the definition matters because it is in the constitution. And winning the definition means having jurisdiction and the ability to fix a real problem. Sure having he Mexican Army bombing Houston isn’t the same as immigrants but in both situations the law provides real remedies to the lack of federal action. Texas has a need to defend themselves either way.

The end result of invasion of the Mexican army attacking or migrants is the same. Either situation threatens the sovereignty of Texas and the loss of territorial control.

The end result of invasion of the Mexican army attacking or migrants is the same.

Even if that's true (which is a big if, one I disagree strongly with), the end result isn't all that matters. Invasion requires intent as well as results.

Surely if interstate commerce includes non-interstate non-commerce, invasion includes immigration.

No, that's not how it works. Just because the 1942 Supreme Court was pants on head retarded doesn't make it ok for others to work off bad interpretations of the Constitution as well.

I say it does make it okay. Either words have meanings or they do not. If words consistently lose their meanings in certain circumstances (mainly when the government wants more power) then they mean nothing to begin with.

So long as that ruling is upheld, it is sufficient on its own to prove that the government's design has failed utterly. Best that words always have meanings, but better to accept reality than to sacrifice oneself fighting to uphold norms which are already broken past repair.

Until such rulings are repealed completely, all rulings are just who/whom as far as I'm concerned.

If you wish to act in bad faith because others have, I certainly can't stop you. And I doubt I could convince you that it's folly. But you have no right to complain that others act poorly when you are willing to act poorly yourself when it benefits you.

If you wish to act in bad faith because others have, I certainly can't stop you.

I'll continue loudly advocating for a return to principles, and loudly attacking those who pretend that we currently have principles. What part of this is bad faith?

But you have no right to complain that others act poorly when you are willing to act poorly yourself when it benefits you.

Violence is justified in self defense. This isn't hypocrisy; there's a meaningful difference between attacking someone with violence and defending oneself with violence. The principle doesn't just allow for "acting poorly" "when it benefits you" either; it allows for "acting poorly" under a certain limited and universally applicable set of circumstances.

If the enemy has defected 100 times in a row, and you keep cooperating, it's time to start defecting no matter what they say. There's no hypocrisy there. The principle is not "never defect," it's "work tirelessly to make cooperation possible, but in the meantime don't cooperate with defectors."

You don’t think this invasion has intent?

There are plenty of NGO’s facilitating transport to the border.

Results? We are already set to be a majority minority country and all that entails as far as control of governance. Plus 6 million new inhabitants since Biden took over. That seems like a result.

You have yet to demonstrate that there's an intent to take over the country. The more likely explanation is that immigrants are coming here because they feel they can have a better life here, and the various NGOs are helping because they are compassionate towards the less fortunate. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain this.

And, as I've already said, I don't agree with your idea of what the result here is going to be.

Every single person who ever did anything did it under the claims of wanting a better life. To go full Godwins principle that was literally Hitlers reasoning for war that the German people needed more land………for a better life for the German people.

The reasoning you are giving is the exact reasons why I assume they want to come to America.

Just because the migrants are doing something in their best interests doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect me as an American citizen.

Everyone who’s ever invaded anyone has done it for the reasons you expressed. I never said it was what is known as a conspiracy theory.

We seem to be in agreement that there's no malicious intent. But if there isn't, then it isn't an invasion no matter how many people come over. Even if people immigrating for honorable reasons were to fundamentally change the nature of the country (which again, it won't in my opinion), if that isn't the reason they are coming over it doesn't matter. It is absurd to say that people immigrating into a country, one which is known for welcoming them, becomes an invasion when enough of them do so.

I don’t think malicious intent is required for it to be an invasion.

I mean COVID doesn’t want to kill people. It just wants to spread and replicate but that doesn’t mean it’s not a deadly disease. The underlying virus lacks malicious intent.

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