site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31818 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I suppose this is intended to be a catch-all response to the various people here and elsewhere saying that this is actually a demonstration of good healthy democratic-body function. This doesn't concern arguments about a) The inability of a GOP house to take meaningful action with a Dem Senate and President, or b) the belief that a non-functioning House is a positive because the federal government mostly harms and doesn't help.

The issue I take with this viewpoint is that while other parliamentary systems operate in a manner which is more similar to what we're seeing - the norms and practices of the house are actually reflective of the consent and will of the people who participate in it. There was a process to determine the speaker at the Republican Conference (as there is for every congress - sometimes more than once), including negotiating, concessions, a vote etc. This was not smoke and mirrors or shrouded from the public - it is not the system's design that every thought and whisper happens in public, but that votes and procedural action is public. To borrow another parliamentary analogy - this is the equivalent of voting against a confidence motion. It's not reflective of any actual negotiation or democratic participation. The freedom caucus is obviously technically allowed to violate this norm despite being a small minority because the GOP margin is so narrow.

While it does seem like an unmerciful mess, it's at least better than the Fall of the House of Truss, where there was chaos, Whips swearing, manhandling, and resigning (and then unresigning), MPs (allegedly) weeping and contradictory messages coming out of Downing Street.

Has anyone set up a head of lettuce to see which lasts longer - the lettuce, or McCarthy? 😁

Oh that lettuce was such a wonderful romp.

this is actually a demonstration of good healthy democratic-body function.

The issue I take here is that this position is either naive, cope, or disingenuous. You can say you think open debate is good and even mean it, but the proceedings are public. Anyone watching can quite clearly see that there no debate or negotiation. That all happens - by necessity - behind the scenes. A couple of people make insipid nominating speeches before each round of balloting, votes are tallied, and the process starts over. This isn't going to start some new practice of speakers being chosen by floor debate. Whatever resolution comes of this will be the result of a backroom deal that is then presented to the public.

The inability of a GOP house to take meaningful action with a Dem Senate and President

It absolutely can - it can acquiesce in various democratic legislative priorities, impeach various officials, hold various oversight hearings, change legislative rules to increase or decrease the power of individual members or sub-caucus interest blocs, advance compromise bills of their own, etc.

it is not the system's design that every thought and whisper happens in public, but that votes and procedural action is public.

Oh, I'm sure that the Kevin McCarthys of the world prefer the design where they get to say, "get in line or I will ensure that you never sit on a committee again" behind closed doors, I'm just unclear how this is supposed to be a compelling argument in favor of that design for those of us that are enjoying the proceedings today. I want the norms and practices changed. The status quo has led to runaway federal spending and power to the extent that I'm amenable to a few wreckers attempting to do some actual wrecking. What is lost in doing so?

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