site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If I had been able to remember the specifics I'd have linked them, but (to my shame) I'm not a high enough level Motte-ian who curates a linkbank of every gotcha example of malfeasance I've ever seen (this sounds sarcastic, but it's not, I wish I had the diligence to do that).

The best I can tell you is that I vaguely remember second-hand discussion of the vote-by-mail rules getting relaxed in some purple state's senates at the last second and in questionably quorate circumstances, ostensibly due to Covid, read-between-the-lines-ibly because they knew mail voting helps Dems. For some this was seen as a smoking gun that Dems were planning massive mail fraud; I was of the more prosaic mind that they were trying to lower the effort bar so as to improve turnout rather than literally fake turnout. One is technically illegal cheating, the other is technically legal cheating, but in my mind it's the cheating makes it wrong, not which side of BureaucratSpeak Administrative State Law #16493B Subsection 17F you're on.

Ah, it's one of those irregular verbs: my clever stratagem, your underhanded ploy...

What is it about trying to lubricate the voting process that makes it 'cheating' compared to throwing sand in the gears of the same (e.g. by closing polling places or purging voter from the rolls on dubious grounds), or gerrymandering, or challenging the signatures on your opponent's petition to get them thrown off the ballot, or anything other bits of legal maneuvering used to push and pull electoral outcomes? If we're not alleging actual fraud, what is the objection?

What is it about trying to lubricate the voting process that makes it 'cheating' compared to throwing sand in the gears of the same

When you do it at the last minute in response to an ideologically ginned-up fake crisis which you ginned-up in part precisely so you could do this, all the while complaining that other people aren't respecting "institutional norms".

If we're not alleging actual fraud, what is the objection?

That the praxis of Western democracy in it's entirety has become fake and gay, I suppose. Two wolves and a lamb voting who's for dinner may constitute above-board, by-the-numbers, all nice and legal democracy... but an autistic loyalty to the rules while shrugging your shoulders at the result has confused means with ends.

When you do it at the last minute in response to an ideologically ginned-up fake crisis which you ginned-up in part precisely so you could do this, all the while complaining that other people aren't respecting "institutional norms".

So what? If it is legal and we're not claiming it fatally compromises election security, what is the problem? Is the claim that these people aren't entitled to vote?

That the praxis of Western democracy in it's entirety has become fake and gay... [A]n autistic loyalty to the rules while shrugging your shoulders at the result has confused means with ends.

What does that mean? It's not like Republicans can't win elections, and if the media memeplex blares out left-propaganda 24/7 in an effort to "manufacture consent"*, it doesn't seem to be succeeding.

*scare quotes mine

So what? If it is legal and we're not claiming it fatally compromises election security, what is the problem? Is the claim that these people aren't entitled to vote?

This argument assumes that "legal" is equivalent to "moral", "acceptable". Alternatively, the laws are wrong, and the laws that establish the laws are also wrong.

Our system requires buy-in for its continued operation. What you're looking at is the metastasizing death of buy-in. People conclude that the system is not capable of operating in their interests, so they stop arguing over how to tweak the fine details and start looking for revolutionary change.

The way to prevent this is to argue that the system is, in fact, capable of operating in their interests. Our society has failed to do this in a number of ways, so people turn to the solutions promised by extremism instead.

This argument assumes that "legal" is equivalent to "moral", "acceptable". Alternatively, the laws are wrong, and the laws that establish the laws are also wrong.

Alright, what is the moral complaint about enabling people to exercise their right to vote, especially given that per the initial point we are not positing a fraudulent election?

Our system requires buy-in for its continued operation. What you're looking at is the metastasizing death of buy-in. People conclude that the system is not capable of operating in their interests

What does that mean? Do these people have the right to vote? If so, why does facilitating the exercise of that right undermine buy-in? I struggle to find a charitable interpretation for this.

Alright, what is the moral complaint about enabling people to exercise their right to vote, especially given that per the initial point we are not positing a fraudulent election?

Your question presupposes legitimacy-by-default of the existing, highly complex political system, when the system's fundamental legitimacy is the question at hand. Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner is likewise not a "fraudulent election".

People ultimately judge systems by the outcomes those systems deliver. Convince a large, reasonably cohesive slice of the population that the system is not capable of delivering acceptable outcomes, and they will not necessarily argue indefinitely over where exactly the system is going wrong, but may simply scrap the system and try something different.

What does that mean? Do these people have the right to vote? If so, why does facilitating the exercise of that right undermine buy-in? I struggle to find a charitable interpretation for this.

Two people are rolling dice, and get into an argument. The first guy claims that unless the other guy can prove he's cheating and explaining exactly how the cheat works, it should be assumed that he's playing fairly. The other guy points out that his dice win too often to be fair.

From that level of information, notably, one can't actually tell in a rigorous fashion who's in the right. On the other hand, the first guy's argument flies in the face of human psychology, of how people actually work, while the second guy's argument is exactly how people have always worked and always will. You should not expect this argument to result in a return to the dice-rolling, and you should especially not expect the dice-rolling to continue indefinately.

When dealing with vast, complex systems, people observe outcomes and judge the system thereby. Our current system has delivered unacceptably bad outcomes from a Red perspective, and it's done it long enough that there's no reasonable hope that the problem can be corrected within the general processes and norms of that system. Reds therefore demand significant, revolutionary change, and are not interested in appeals to the norms or processes that they have long-since grown to deeply distrust.

If this is still mysterious to you, try looking at how black people treat react to appeals to "trust the system" when it comes to questions about the police and justice system.

Your question presupposes legitimacy-by-default of the existing, highly complex political system, when the system's fundamental legitimacy is the question at hand.

When the system's legitimacy is being questioned because of people exercising their right to vote, I think it's reasonably to ask why.

Convince a large, reasonably cohesive slice of the population that the system is not capable of delivering acceptable outcomes, and they will not necessarily argue indefinitely over where exactly the system is going wrong

Why are they convinced of this?

The other guy points out that his dice win too often to be fair.

The other guy claims that, but considering the other guy wins about half the time, we have to question whether or not his objection is in good faith or he is just being a sore loser.

When dealing with vast, complex systems, people observe outcomes and judge the system thereby. Our current system has delivered unacceptably bad outcomes from a Red perspective, and it's done it long enough that there's no reasonable hope that the problem can be corrected within the general processes and norms of that system.

What outcomes? Reds win half the time (frequently despite having less than half the electorate). If you mean the culture war, it turns out there's no vote you can cast or election you can win that will make your kids respect you.

When the system's legitimacy is being questioned because of people exercising their right to vote, I think it's reasonably to ask why.

You are the only one in this thread arguing that "the system's legitimacy is being questioned because of people exercising their right to vote". I'm pretty sure that you insist on this argument because it is one you think you can win. But in fact, what I and @Butlerian are claiming is that "there's no vote you can cast or election you can win that will make your kids respect you". You are willing to make that argument when it is convenient to you, and are not willing to recognize it when it is made against you.

Laws and votes are not the basis of a functional society. "your kids respecting you" is an overspecified description of the actual basis of a functional society, which we might generalize as "cooperation and compromise based on mutual respect and shared interests between a supermajority of the population". That happy state is the precondition for the votes and the elections to actually work their magic. But you don't appear to want to talk about that, so you keep attempting to collapse the discussion down to "people exercising their right to vote". I consider this dishonest, but hardly surprising at this late date.

I can't stop you from sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "people exercising their right to vote". I can only note that such narrowly specified heuristics observably go away when the vote doesn't go the way your tribe likes; see the general angst over the electoral college, which you yourself hint at above. So it's all about the rules when the rules are convinient, and it's all about the principles when the principles are convinient, and as long as you're the umpire, you win every argument. And that's well enough, only you aren't actually the umpire. There isn't actually an umpire. There's just tribes, and conflict between them.

The other guy claims that, but considering the other guy wins about half the time, we have to question whether or not his objection is in good faith or he is just being a sore loser.

Two people can play dice, each win half the rolls, and still have one person clean the other out: simply have the one person's wins be big-stakes, and the other person's wins be small stakes. Simple stuff. "you've won half the rolls, it's just that I win the rolls where there's actually money at stake" is not a persuasive argument for keeping the game going.

What outcomes?

Too many for the margin to contain, but to list a scant few: The difference in outcomes between Obergefell and Heller, as a case study for the inequities of the courts as a remedy generally. The manifest inability to control school curricula, even when you win elections, as a case study on the inadequacy of electoral remedy. The collapse of "free speech" norms and ideology once they became inconvenient to Blue Tribe culture as a case study in the general inadequacy of informal norms as a social remedy. Blue Tribe economic warfare against Red tribe as a case study in the inadequacy of economic remedy.

Blue tribe is determined to crush Red Tribe in every facet of social, economic and political life. When Reds object, Blues point out that what they're doing isn't illegal. When Reds point out that some of it actually is illegal, Blues point out that selective enforcement of the laws isn't illegal. The lesson to be drawn from this sequence of events isn't to try to draft laws better, it's to stop treating the law as though it were worthy of respect as an impartial, shared institution.

More comments