site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   24128 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 10, 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.

FDA vs Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the mifepristone case, was decided by SCOTUS. Full verdict here. The anti-abortion plaintiffs lose 9-0 on standing, with (quite properly for a case lost on standing) no discussion of the merits. Kav writes for the majority, with Thomas concurring on a technical point of standing law (on one of three theories of standing advanced by AHM the majority think they lose on the facts, but Thomas admits that this is correct under current precedent buy under a correct reading of the Constitution he thinks they lose on the law instead).

Quick thoughts:

  • The unanimous opinion treats this as an easy standing case. It is somewhat longer than an opinion needs to be in an easy standing case, which suggests that at least some of the justices wanted to benchslap Judge Kacsmaryk and the 5th Circuit panel.
  • Standing requirements make lawfare harder. If the right-wing Justices wanted to unleash a campaign of right-leaning lawfare then they could have decided this case differently, so it looks like the small-c conservative aversion to lawfare is holding up even with a right-wing Court.
  • Nevertheless, I suspect the pro-life movement can find a plaintiff with standing - perhaps a Catholic mail carrier who objects to delivering abortifacients could sue under the Comstock Act (which looks like the plaintiffs' best argument on the merits). But nothing is going to be decided before the election if a plaintiff wiht standing files a new suit.
  • The Project 2025 says that an incoming Republican administration should aggressively enforce the Comstock Act (which is prsumptively constitutional post-Dobbs) against pharmacies posting mifepristone to patients. This would render this litigation irrelevant.

The Project 2025 says that an incoming Republican administration should aggressively enforce the Comstock Act (which is prsumptively constitutional post-Dobbs) against pharmacies posting mifepristone to patients. This would render this litigation irrelevant.

Trump is at least aware enough to realize that hardcore prolife is very much a minority position in American politics. Some on the right seem to have run away with their own personal copium on this subject because polling shows most people don’t support unlimited abortion on demand until birth, but that doesn’t mean these pills used until the 10 week point are widely opposed at all.

The best thing the next GOP president can do on abortion is say it’s not federal business and let the states handle it. Getting trapped into promising federal / congressional restrictions would be a big mistake and highly unpopular.

This position makes no sense if you're actually pro life though. Currently all you can do is ban abortion for anyone too poor/stupid/disconnected to get a bus ticket, you can't actually ban abortion. That's a win in red states, but it isn't nearly enough of one.

If one considers abortion murder, it's little comfort that a girl has to cross a state line to do it.

What was the point of banning slavery in only some states? If people really considered slavery evil, why settle for only banning it in one's own state, while it is perpetuated just over the state line?

...I think most abolitionists did pretty much seek to end slavery throughout the country?

Abraham Lincoln, prior to his election:

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed -

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South.

...I think most abolitionists did pretty much seek to end slavery throughout the country?

And the way they did it was by winning locally before they went for a global solution. Pro-life has only just recently secured the possibility for local wins. They need to consolidate those wins before going for a global solution, or they will lose their hard-fought gains.

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