site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   21703 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The legal theory that the constitution empowers the VP to unilaterally determine election outcomes is an utterly ridiculous one and Trump’s own VP refused to go along with it.

The VP’s constitutionally defined role in the election process is a distinct issue from whether there was significant fraud in the 2020 election.

This week’s thread is full of requests for evidence by me and others that the 2020 election was stolen, rigged, or otherwise plagued with widespread fraud.

None has been provided; mostly there is whining over the request and lawyerly approach by everyone’s favorite public defender.

You are welcome to step up and make the case.

The legal theory that the constitution empowers the VP to unilaterally determine election outcomes is an utterly ridiculous one and Trump’s own VP refused to go along with it.

Nobody proposed this theory. This does not resemble what was debated in 2020 in the slightest.

None has been provided; mostly there is whining over the request and lawyerly approach by everyone’s favorite public defender.

You have decided a priori that what I have brought up re: mail-in ballots and urban machines isn't worth discussing: why should I provide more evidence when it will be equally dismissed as no evidence.

Trump claimed Pence could unilaterally decide to decertify the entire election.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/01/fact-check-trump-falsely-claims-pence-had-right-overturn-election/9284564002/

I decided nothing a priori about presented evidence.

Looking back on this thread, I’m not seeing where you presented evidence of specific cases of voter fraud or the like; I’m seeing you describe how it might have happened.

Those are not the same thing and the particular demand is for concrete evidence; we have an oversupply of theories here.

No, the theory was that Pence could refuse to open and count electors from disputed states, which would return the matter to the respective state legislatures. That is not "unilaterally decid[ing] to decertify the entire election". Your frame is a bungled media summary. In evidence of that summary, they cite Trump referencing a law Congress passed to explicitly disambiguate the Constitutional passage in question.

Not sure if you realize this but by choosing to not accept the election results of any given state the VP would be in effect single-handedly deciding the election outcome, given who controls which state legislatures, if he chose to.

Which was the whole point of the exercise, which Pence rejected.

Here he is in his own words:

Vesting the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide presidential contests would be entirely antithetical to that [constitutional] design.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/read-pences-full-letter-saying-he-cant-claim-unilateral-authority-to-reject-electoral-votes

I think the words I used align with Pence’s statement and directly follow from the words you used.

Trump agrees with my interpretation too.

"If Mike Pence does the right thing we win the election," Trump told thousands of supporters who rallied Wednesday on the Ellipse, just south of the White House, an hour before the count in Congress was to begin.

"All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people," Trump said.

Why do you disagree with Trump and Pence on their shared understanding of this theory and its implications?

single-handedly deciding the election outcome, given who controls which state legislatures

The VP would be "single-handedly" determining the result by handing the result to other elected officials.

You’re trying really hard to avoid the obvious consequence that both Trump and Pence state outright.

You’re making a distinction without a difference for no reason that actually matters here.

You're conflating the theory of the cause and the theory of the effect.

You said:

Nobody proposed this theory. This does not resemble what was debated in 2020 in the slightest.

Based on the direct quotation of Pence I’ve provided that closely matches my description you took issue with, are you able to acknowledge you were wrong?

More comments

I’m using plain English that matches statements by both Trump and Pence while you seem intent on pointless nitpicking.

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