site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   21704 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.

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?

This was what you said:

The legal theory that the constitution empowers the VP to unilaterally determine election outcomes is an utterly ridiculous one

Not even Pence went this far. Pence, at best said that he did not believe he had the power to "unilaterally" "count" votes.

Is this a distinction without a difference? Well, clearly there's a big gap between returning disputed electors to the state legislatures, and radically resolving the dispute with the sole authority of VP. You can argue that, in effect, Pence would have decided the election for Trump by returning matters to the states. But you can't make up that this was what Trump et al. were proposing in the constitution, and then call it "ridiculous".

I really need you to slow down and actually read the words I wrote.

Let me repeat directly quoting Pence:

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

So you’re wrong twice here, once on what Pence and Trump described (matching my own words very closely), and again when you say:

Well, clearly there's a big gap between returning disputed electors to the state legislatures, and radically resolving the dispute with the sole authority of VP.

Because the former leads directly to the latter, which was the whole point, and publicly acknowledged by a wide range of figures in the right.

So I’m not making it up and a wide range of legal experts have called the idea some synonym of ridiculous because it so plainly is in both term of history and game theory.

This is tiresome. You presented a strawman of the VP-elector theory. Just because Pence repeated that strawman in his rejection of the theory does not absolve you from using a strawman. (Note: Pence's summary doesn't even go as far as yours: Pence claimed he could not unilaterally reject electors, while you claimed Trump thought Pence could unilaterally declare the entire election.)

Yes, the need for VP-elector theory was so Trump could attempt to be sworn in. That was the imagined effect. But that is not what the theory justified itself by. It's as if you said that Dobbs v. Jackson is the theory that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions.

Holy shit man.

Pence literally said “decide.”

i said “determine.”

Those are synonyms.

I cannot make you employ basic reading comprehension, let alone any other reasoning, so I’m done here.

Please remain civil, even when you suspect your interlocutors are playing dumb. Talking past each other won’t make it any better. For that matter, neither will flouncing off. Random readers can and will come away with the impression that you’re the unreasonable one.

I don’t think he’s playing dumb and I blocked him accordingly.

I’m not sure if you read the whole thread, but he denied nearly identical wording and shifted goalposts.

That’s not “talking past each other” that’s something else.

Do I still get to reply after I've been blocked?

Yes, you can. Don’t expect it to get a response, since yours won’t be visible to the blocker. The bit about “higher standards” just means don’t try and exploit that by asking (unanswerable) questions or going for personal attacks.

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