site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   34433 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 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.

12
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Most of the world, historically, limited the franchise to landowning men- that is, heads of established households. And that’s probably a pretty good filter for not being a total train wreck.

I would suggest that ‘no criminal record, over 21, employed or married’ would fill a similar function today.

I keep toying with the idea of having to post a bond of some substantial value that is forfeit if the voter leaves their legislative district before some term of years. Potentially allowing for rolling it election to election instead of continually posting a new one each term unless someone wanted the flexibility. Maybe making the bond cost progressive. The whole having skin in the game effect since people seem so allergic to restricting the franchise to landowners.

That would restrict voting to the rich, since poor people couldn't afford the risk. That would also mean that the government could hurt people and they wouldn't be able to leave to escape without paying the government off.

Poor people already significantly do not vote compared to rich. Although realistically there should be some nontrivial cost floor. Paul voting whether or not Peter should be robbed to pay for Paul has some issues. The franchise being conditioned on the bond does not stop poor people from leaving, only those who voted for that same government in the first place who cannot bear the cost. And a progressive cost on the bond would mean that it would be proportionally costly for rich and poor.

Most of the world, historically, limited the franchise to landowning men- that is, heads of established households.

Most of the world, historically, limited the franchise to the aristocracy if they had voting at all. I'm not sure what "established" household means but prior to the Reform Acts in the mid 19th century the franchise in Britain was extremely limited - far more so than just married, non-lumpen men.

Western societies historically had some means of franchise available for (adult, male)full members. Rome and Greece famously spent a lot of time as republics, the ancient germanics allowed landowning men to sit in the thing, etc.

The ancien regime in France was the exception, not the rule. Most western societies had legislative bodies elected by commoners(although often with property requirements).

What metric do you consider to determine whether your voting filter is a good idea? The fact that a system was used historically doesn't tell us about its merits.

To clarify, men only or women as well?

Men and women- it fills the same function as previous laws restricting voting to established persons who contribute to society.

One more question, if you don't mind. How strict are we talking for no criminal record? Squeaky clean down to zero moving or parking violations or do we allow a certain amount of flexibility for misdemeanors? I'm not poking at you, I'm just genuinely curious about your ideas on this.

To be clear this entire exercise is just spitballing ideas to mirror a historical ‘full membership’ requirement, but I’d imagine ‘nothing other than minor violations/period of years since last violation’ both make sense here.

Citations should be fine (eg speeding, parking ticket, etc). Misdemeanor maybe ten year window? Felon forever.

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