site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   33886 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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Well, Texas is Texas. I wouldn't expect a blue wave there no matter what.

You may well be right that the sort of Republican women who think abortion should be legalized are the sort of women who think only sluts gets abortions. (I suspect they are also the sort of women who will get one for themselves or their daughters but tell themselves that their situation is different.)

However, if what so many people are insisting, that the pro-choice vote, and particularly the angry woman pro-choice vote, isn't that significant, then why was there so much outrage and concern at the Dobbs leak? I certainly remember a lot of people here insisting that it was meant to tank the Republicans' chances in November.

The Dobbs leak is concerning for all sorts of ostensibly non-political reasons, like Supreme Court integrity. And for the record I think it was for a confluence of individual motives that don’t add up to affecting the midterms, and that the affecting the midterms explanation for the leak doesn’t make any sense because the actual ruling would’ve been released by then anyways.

I do think blue tribers have a generally poor mental model of why people vote GOP, and that this is a major effect on their reaction to news like that.

However, if what so many people are insisting, that the pro-choice vote, and particularly the angry woman pro-choice vote, isn't that significant, then why was there so much outrage and concern at the Dobbs leak?

Because the outrage and concern was manufactured at DNC headquarters and passed along through the New York Times, Washington Post, et al. Not that there isn't an angry pro-choice woman vote... but it's mostly in blue states where there's no real chance of abortion restrictions anyway. And they're not swing voters; they're going to vote Democratic anyway, and as long as neither a national abortion ban nor an abortion ban for their state is in the cards, they won't be much more motivated to vote than they would anyway.

I am not talking about the outrage over what was leaked (that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned). I am talking about the outrage that the leak happened. If you don't think an angry pro-choice woman vote is likely to tip any elections, then you don't care if pro-choice women got angry. But conservatives thought the leak was not only intended to be damaging to their side but that it definitely would be.

Because those kinds of leaks, for political purposes (or whatever the purpose was, and until the leaker is identified then their motives can't be known) are bad for the judicial process. The two branches of the legislature and the judiciary are supposed to be separate. If leaking is going to be one more tool of political campaigning and partisanship, then the judicial system is further weakened.

If you don't want activist judges ruling according to the will of their political parties, then don't permit the likes of this to happen (and if you do want activist judges, well guys this is what happens when the activists of the other side get elected. At least a semblance of voting on the law and neutrality is necessary).

Your response is like many here, that the anger was over unfairness and judicial process and the "other side" playing dirty, etc. (We still don't know who the leaker actually was and I've seen arguments for clerks from either side being responsible.)

I don't doubt many people felt that way, but what I saw predominantly in conservative circles was not "This is a violation of the integrity of the Supreme Court" but "This is meant to hurt us in the midterms."

That claim doesn't even make sense. Yes, the Dobbs leak happened before the midterms, but so did the release of Dobbs itself, as everyone was aware. How was the draft release supposed to affect the midterms in a way that the actual decision release would not?

Also, you are sliding right past the claim that the Dobbs leak was intended to affect the eventual decision reached in Dobbs itself, by leveraging public pressure into swaying votes on the Court. That was a central concern, as one of the longstanding beefs that conservatives had was with Justices "growing in office" and abandoning their earlier principles.

Edit to add: If the claim was rather "I expect Dobbs to harm Republican chances during the midterms," I would not object. Perfectly plausible claim, in my opinion. But I do object to the claim that the Dobbs leak would have a direct impact on the midterms beyond the decision itself.

I'm not making the claim. I am describing what I saw other people claiming.

Also, you are sliding right past the claim that the Dobbs leak was intended to affect the eventual decision reached in Dobbs itself, by leveraging public pressure into swaying votes on the Court.

I'm not sliding past anything. If I were forced to speculate, I'd agree that that is the most likely motive for the leak.

I believe a lot of the conservative outrage at the leak was simply indignation that "they cheated again" (and this would be stronger in DC where again, the journalists are). If conservatives thought the leak was damaging I think they were in error -- it mean the outrage ginned up at the decision was spent early.

There have been leaks of private information from the Supreme Court before Dobbs; what made Dobbs unusual was that it was a full draft leak, not just a reported outcome, and crucially that it was well before Dobbs was announced, which meant that the leak and public reaction could have plausibly changed the outcome.

Oh, and there was an assassination attempt against Brett Kavanaugh. Because of the Dobbs leak. So yes, conservatives thought the leak could be damaging against their side, given that the senior members of the Democratic Party were pulling their best "will no one rid me of these meddlesome Justices" act.

Some conservatives thought that it was a cudgel to try to force the court to change its positions before releasing the final decision.

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