site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36181 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 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.

20
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I guess you didn't read my links carefully. The specific quote I provided of a woman trying to prevent his presidency was from an inauguration day protest (i.e. before Trump assumed the presidency) at literally the location where he would be inaugurated. Violent actions - e.g. setting a car on fire - also happened. So by your stated criteria, it was a coup attempt.

But I guess you can gerrymander your definitions even more carefully now that I've pointed this out.

The protests against Bush in 2000 and 2004 were also pre-inauguration, and were generally aimed at influencing the vote counting process.

it was literally a protest in the sense that nothing they could do at this point could make Trump a not-President and they were just expressing their frustration.

You seem to be claiming that because anti-Trump protesters (including violent ones) had no hope at achieving their stated goal of preventing him from becoming president, they are "just expressing their frustration". But when anti-Biden protesters (mostly peaceful) engaged in protest but had no hope of stopping Biden, it's a coup attempt. Weird.

I believe they had hope of stopping Biden. They had no chance of stopping Biden. Intent matters.

Similarly, people say this sort of thing all the time, and then one side or the other makes drama from it all the time; the critical factor is undertaking steps of a concrete plan to bring it about. It doesn't particularly matter if the plan is very, very hopeless, because you want to nuke any incentive gradient that could lead to a better second attempt. Conversely, "we don't like Bush, so let's set a car on fire" is not even based on any whatsoever plausible model of how an election could be overturned.

Is "lets take selfies while illegally wandering around and vandalize Pelosi's desk" based on a plausible model of how an election could be overturned?

From what I can recall the goal was to persuade Pence to do some maneuver of questionable legality, much like the protest attempts directed at vote counters/courts in 2000 and 2004. But those weren't coup attempts.

Anyway glad to know that the crux of the issue is how hopeful the mostly peaceful rioters feel.

P.S. There were literal death threats directed at members of the electoral college, also in an attempt to stop Trump. No arrests for that "coup attempt" that I can find either.

protest attempts directed at vote counters/courts in 2000 and 2004. But those weren't coup attempts.

(I am not committed to these not being coup attempts. However, there is a difference in scale.)

My response to this is what the previous poster said to your previous remark: You're slicing things very finely so that the exact definition of what counts as a coup is contrived to only count January 6, and to not count anything done by a leftist. This became especially obvious when he told you that the leftist versions did meet your criteria and you changed your criteria so as to exclude them. You're also using vague terms like (ironically) "concrete plan" and"plausible model". I can easily imagine setting a car on fire to be a concrete plan; someone has the general idea "people respond to shows of force" so burning the car will lead to the government reconsidering. Sure, there's a step in the chain of reasoning that's not likely, but that's also true for any January 6 protestors who wanted to change the result.

Those criteria are guided by my understanding of culpability in German law, where I live. Particularly the idea of a plausible model is founded in § 23 of the criminal law, where the presence of a crime requires that the particulars are suited to lead to success in principle. For instance, you are committing a crime by shooting at a plane flying overhead even if your gun is fundamentally too weak to shoot bullets that high, but not by attempting to curse the plane down via strategically buried nailclippings.

edit: Reread, correction: it is a crime but may go unpunished or be punished leniently.

I'm not sure how a judge would decide "burning a car leads to Bush not being elected", but I see it as more an expression of powerlessness, a substitutive behavior that is more an expression of psychological defeat than particular criminal intent aimed at overturning the election. In other words, the J6 protesters had hope of an outcome that favored them; an anti-Bush protester did not.

Reread, correction: it is a crime but may go unpunished or be punished leniently.

You just undermined your own argument; this "correction" pretty much says "yeah, I guess it is a crime, even under German law". Of course, you're finely slicing things again by saying that although it's a crime, it's a crime that often goes unpunished.

I'm not sure how a judge would decide "burning a car leads to Bush not being elected", but I see it as more an expression of powerlessness

That's more finely slicing. It's an "expression of powerlessness", so it doesn't count.

Whether something counts as an "expression of powerlessness" is a completely subjective decision, and is obviously not synonymous with "has a low chance of working" (since both cases have a low chance of working). And you didn't state it until it turned out you needed to do so to explain how left-wing protestors are totally different. Of course, you're always going to find some minute detail on which January 6 protestors differ from any left-wing example, if you look hard enough.

Yes, I slice finely. I'm trying to report the model my brain makes. Human concepts are often sliced finely.

I used the term "expression of powerlessness" not as an excuse but to explain why people are putting a lot of effort into a plan that transparently does not affect the source of their displeasure.

There's a difference between "has a low chance of working" and "lacks a plausible model of effect."

IMO, calling left-wing riots "domestic terrorism" is a much easier sell.

Yes, I slice finely. I'm trying to report the model my brain makes. Human concepts are often sliced finely.

How is anyone supposed to distinguish between "I am changing my criteria to best fit my model" and "I am changing my criteria to best fit my conclusion"? Especially when the new criteria are subjective.

There's a difference between "has a low chance of working" and "lacks a plausible model of effect."

"People respond to threats of violence" is a plausible model of effect for burning cars. It's wrong, but it's plausible.

Sure, and if someone went ahead and actually threatened to burn politicians' and election workers' cars and houses, rather than undirected violence, I'd fully expect the state to absolutely destroy them.

Does Germany still have any common law, or did it ever get a full civil code rewrite? I imagine there was some pretty high profile precedent about culpability for witchcraft at one point.

There is apparently a 474 page book on this topic. I shall not read it.

Hey, if I have to suffer through Rüdiger Lautmann's "Die Lust am Kind" to win the groomer argument, other people should be forced to read tedious German academic books too.

So like with Disrupt J20? The distiction made here exists, but doesn't separate J6 from J20.

And if intent matters, /r/witchesvspatriarchy should be investigated for attempting to harm Trump using magic.

This specific case is actually explicitly not covered under my understanding of criminal intent! It'd be called a "superstitious attempt" in German law and be considered leniently because there's no actual danger.

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