site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   31274 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Desantis seems to actually care not just about looking good and winning his own elections, he seems to care about establishing systems which will, over a longer term, support his allies and thus increase the chances his goals will be achieved in the future.

Right, and scaring the shit out of anyone with a felony record about even thinking about voting (even if they are legally allowed to) is likely to have a beneficial effect for the Republican party's election chances. Do you disagree?

I would broaden it to "scare the shit out of anyone who was thinking of trying to fraudulently influence the election" at all.

This is a flex which shows "we can detect illegal votes and we WILL investigate illegal votes. Risk it at your peril."

My prediction is that there will be little fraud in the 2022 Florida elections. I DONT know how much occurred in prior elections. But there won't be much this time.

You keep dodging the question. People are going to jail because they believed bogus information given to them by the government. Do you or do you not support those prosecutions? If you do, can you explain exactly how prosecuting people for believing the government advances any causes?

You keep dodging the question. People are going to jail because they believed bogus information given to them by the government. Do you or do you not support those prosecutions?

I think that these guys should not be sent to jail.

I think if they can demonstrate that they were told that they were legally permitted to vote, and voted while under this belief, they should have their cases dropped.

Further, I think they should each sue the state of Florida for the hassle this imposed and other damages based on the theory of Malicious Prosecution.

I'd guess somewhere on the range of $10k to $25k would be appropriate damages.

So assuming all twenty were to sue, and all twenty were to win, and all twenty were to receive $25k, then the state of Florida should pay out that $500,000 to them immediately.

Or, in other terms pay out .002% of Florida's budget surplus

And that seems quite a worthwhile expenditure to avoid any major electoral fiascos in 2022.

It's apparently ok to file charges against people who are likely innocent because then they might sue the people who are actually responsible for this situation and then maybe those settlements will encourage better behavior from the government...you do see how convoluted that is, right?

The guy DeSantis picked to run Office of Election Crimes and Security explicitly told local election officials this wasn't their fault. It's the state government that is in charge of parsing through all the relevant records and giving a final answer to local officials. If this is an issue worth putting people in jail over why isn't DeSantis prosecuting his own administration officials? There's an obvious conflict of interest here, which I would think would severely undercut the idea that DeSantis' was acting in good faith when he chose to make a spectacle of these random people's arrests. I've explained what I believe DeSantis is doing — he's prosecuting these people to scare the hell out of any felon from even thinking about getting their voting rights reinstated, to appease his supporters who still believe in delusional election fraud theories, and also to distract from the problems his own government has in implementing Amendment 4 — and you haven't disavowed me of those beliefs. What do you think I'm missing?

It's apparently ok to file charges against people who are likely innocent because then they might sue the people who are actually responsible for this situation and then maybe those settlements will encourage better behavior from the government...you do see how convoluted that is, right?

Never said anything about it being 'okay.'

I am, this entire time, trying to get you to see why this is not a 'bewildering' action, and is in fact motivated by a rational goal which is being carried out in an entirely rational way.

You are imputing morality into the matter, I'm pointing out that moral or not, this is very clearly serving Desantis' end goals, and it isn't costing much to do it.

I've had this exact back-and-forth like 5 times now.

Most recently regarding the migrant flights.

And when he removed a state attorney from office.

Also regarding the Reedy Creek Kerfuffle vs. Disney.

and just before that on the "Don't Say Gay" issue.

Before that it was his Covid policy.

Every single time, I point out that this 'stupid' or 'self-defeating' action by Desantis actually has clear motivation and goals that are simply beyond the object-level. Sending 50 migrants to Martha's Vineyard isn't, itself, a solution to an illegal immigration crisis. So either he's stupid for trying it, OR HE HAS DIFFERENT GOALS THAN YOU ARE ASCRIBING TO HIM.

I note that Desantis is 'winning' along every single metric that would matter to him, he's about to win his re-election, and he is and continues to be a front-runner for the 2024 Presidential election. His state continues to have more people moving there. Maybe this will change in 2023 and all these efforts will 'finally' backfire on him. Probably not.

I am trying to explain how your model of Desantis and his behavior is clearly missing something.

I don't care if you think he's doing the moral or right thing. I can even disagree with what he's doing. But it's been obvious to me for a long time that he's not fighting like a normal politician and thus it would be a mistake to model him as one.

I have been ready to accept that what DeSantis is doing is trying to scare felons from voting, in a bid to improve his electoral chances. I think that's the most likely explanation. I was keeping my mind open and looking for something less uncharitable.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I have been ready to accept that what DeSantis is doing is trying to scare felons from voting, in a bid to improve his electoral chances. I think that's the most likely explanation.

My friend. His electoral chances have literally never been in doubt.

He's currently sitting at 95% chance of victory on Predictit. his odds never went below 90%. Republicans have gained the lead in voter registrations in Florida, and have expanded it in the past year.

Even FiveThirtyEight has him up almost EIGHT FUCKING POINTS.

This man is NOT worried about winning this next election. And since he's not, he can look far beyond that.

You think he's trying to boost his own chances, and missing that if he can successfully deter fraud throughout the state, this potentially boosts his friends and allies.

Did you notice how he has backed a bunch of people for election to Local School boards? That's not about helping him get re-elected. That's about ensuring his team's policies are implemented throughout the state.

Do you not get that he is capable of considering goals beyond merely benefiting 'himself' personally?

The fun part is I can point all this out to you and it won't make a bit of difference in the long run. If he wins POTUS, it will be because all his opponents were simply unable to see the actual nature of the threat he posed.

Your response is not dispositive. I'm saying he's trying to shore up his electoral chances by discouraging people from voting and you're saying his election chances are already high. Neither is mutually exclusive.

if he can successfully deter fraud throughout the state

What I am finding frustrating about this exchange is the lack of clarity. I'm referring to how the felon voter right restoration process is a mess and you're talking about "voter fraud" as if the two things were the same. They're not. I try to be precise with the language I use so I find it really confusing when you resort to genericized vocabulary.

More comments

If only there was a voter role system that was actually kept up to date, such that these cases would be resolved weeks in advance, and any questionable points dealt with before the election... some kind of registry to vote, such as parties and most nations have...

But one party systematically refuses to allow either voter ID laws, or any securing of the voter registry... leaving effectively an honor system for voting in America. Well if you're going to leave it unsecure enough we're trusting felons' word as to whether or not they're entitled to vote, then there has to be consequences for being wrong.

You could have secure elections where none of these people would be able to vote at all unless it was explicitly signed off by an authority that they had cleared their felony restriction... instead you're taking them at their word, now its just down to whether there are consequences when you prove their word is wrong.

.

I worked elections in Canada in another life... there was no way for anything like the regular "Mistakes" that happen in the American system because of all the ID and paperwork you are required to show and clerks required to document.

You could have secure elections where none of these people would be able to vote at all unless it was explicitly signed off by an authority that they had cleared their felony restriction... instead you're taking them at their word, now its just down to whether there are consequences when you prove their word is wrong.

Somehow you missed the part where the government told these people they could vote, and you somehow also missed how Florida intentionally decided to implement restoration requirements everyone knew was going to be a mess. It might be useful for you to at least skim through the litigation that explained the problems. Here's an excerpt from pg 53:

The case of one named plaintiff, Clifford Tyson, is illustrative. An extraordinarily competent and diligent financial manager in the office of the Hillsborough County Clerk of Court, with the assistance of several long-serving assistants, bulldogged Mr. Tyson’s case for perhaps 12 to 15 hours. The group had combined experience of over 100 years. They came up with what they believed to be the amount owed. But even with all that work, they were unable to explain discrepancies in the records.

This wasn't an issue of ID, and these people were registered. That's why we have advocates saying things like:

[V]oters should also be able to trust the state when they are issued a voter registration card. "It leads to the question of, if you can't count on the government to tell you if you are eligible to vote, then who can you count on?"

As a Republican, I agree that keeping criminals out of elections will disproportionately help my side.

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