site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32065 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

24
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I am fairly skeptical of the idea that classical enlightenment era liberties are especially well protected by the US constitution.

If by this you mean to compare the Constitution to the laws of other nations, I believe that US rights are indeed "especially well protected." As I argued at the top of this comment, other nations do not have rights, but merely "rights" which, compared to the Constitution, are entirely unprotected.

If you mean an absolute level of protection, then I agree that the Constitution provides only partial protection, and a great deal of individual and cultural effort is required.

The US Constitution is just as much a piece of paper as the Charter. It falls to institutions of government and ultimately the people who compose and choose them to enforce those rights.

If by paper you mean "worthless" or "mere formality", I disagree. Again, refer to my comment above, specifically the section on the right against self-incrimination. The Constitution may be a piece of paper, but it is clearly and obviously not "just as much a piece of paper" as the Charter or the laws of England.

The right against self-incrimination is set forth in the Constitution of Canada

And it's overridden by s. 1 of the Charter, which states "this is all null and void if we feel like it".

I am much less likely to have those rights violated by the government when in Canada

I routinely have my property rights violated by the government of Toronto and Ottawa Canada. Of course, property rights don't exist in Canada (and if they did they'd be worthless so long as s. 1 exists), but still.

Can the government(s) of Canada not just "notwithstanding" the Canadian version of the right against self-incrimination?

Edit:

The notwithstanding clause:

Section 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

The right you cited:

Section 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence

Premise1: The notwithstanding clause applies to sections 7 to 15

Premise2: Section 11 is within sections 7 to 15

Conclusion1: the notwithstanding clause applies to section 11

Conclusion2: The Canadian government can legally write a law that prohibits section 11 from applying to Canadians by invoking the notwithstanding clause

Premise3: The Fifth Amendment would prevent the US government from passing a law as contemplated in Conclusion2

Conclusion3: Therefore, Canadians have less/fewer protections and less recourse for violations.

Technically, there would be no violation because the notwithstanding clause "makes it legal" as they say.

I am saying even if the paper rights are stronger in the US, the culture of rights is so much weaker that the paper rights get routinely violated.

You have to have rights to have a culture of rights. See also, Canadian firearms law, the recent handgun ban by fiat, the trucker protest, the monarchy, etc.

The US Government could, at any time, amend the Constitution to curtail the 5th amendment, no?

No. It needs three quarters of the states to ratify the amendment.

Given situations like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133 , do you really find Canada to have better respect for rights?

The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not grant them. So, legally, the removal of the Fifth Amendment would have no effect. I also reject the validity of the 18th Amendment, but I digress.

In any event, the need to "repeal" a constitutional amendment before passing a law that violates said right is one more speedbump than the Canadian Charter has, as Parliament can just pass the law and invoke the notwithstanding clause, which seems to be evidence in favor of my claim that the Constitution is superior protector of rights.

The Constitution certainly does grant rights legally.

Can you expand on what you mean, here? The statement 'the Constitution...grant[s] rights legally' is literally false. Happy to supply evidence on this point. What evidence would you accept?

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