site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   24033 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 1, 2025

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/white-house-admiral-approved-second-strike-boat-venezuela-was-well-within-legal-2025-12-01/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/some-us-republicans-want-answers-venezuela-strikes-despite-trump-2025-12-01/

Aaand (after previously denying it?) the White House confirms that a second strike killed survivors of an initial strike on an alleged drug smuggling boat. (Hegseth is joking about it) It even seems the purpose of the second strike was solely to leave no survivors.

Curious that the targeted smuggling boats have large crews, rather than conserving space and weight capacity for drugs...

  1. Anyone have a read on whether or not there are still "Trump is the anti-war President" true believers and, if so, how those people are trying to square the circle?

  2. The stupider this becomes, the more likely it seems that this conflict is a result of Trump's fixation with spoils of war and that he actually thinks we can literally just "take the oil."

The story I heard is thag Trump asked for the boat to be destroyed, and someone down the chain of command decided to shoot a second missile, which technically did not voilate his orders. There's a lot of leeway in ways to destroy the boat, and legally I can't see the difference between shooting the boat while it was undamaged, versus shooting it after it was damaged by a missile but still floating.

Anyways clearly the intention is to kill the people on those boats, so any screeching that the survivors were finished off will fall on deaf ears. Anyone who wants those people dead is still happy, and anyone who thinks we should give drug smugglers free reign is not.

Curious that the targeted smuggling boats have large crews, rather than conserving space and weight capacity for drugs...

There is zero credible argument that these aren't smuggling boats. Even the most biased anti-Trump news isn't making that claim.

and anyone who thinks we should give drug smugglers free reign is not.

I'm generally sympathetic about drugs. Drugs are sick. I prescribe them sometimes. But when the drugs in question are almost certainly large amounts of fent, I'm not too fussed if the dealer is blown up by a missile.

If Trump is telling the truth about what is going on, the drugs in question are cocaine being smuggled overland from Colombia through Venezuela, and then by boat island-hopping across the Caribbean - most of the boats sunk were travelling from Venezuela to Trinidad, and they don't have the range to reach the US directly. The fentanyl comes in from Mexico across the land border. (It isn't clear to me if it is being cooked in Mexico or if it is being flown into Mexico with Mexican customs paid off).

(It isn't clear to me if it is being cooked in Mexico or if it is being flown into Mexico with Mexican customs paid off).

As far as I know, the consensus view is that the overwhelming majority of fentanyl on US streets takes the following route:

  1. Precursor/component chemicals are produced in China by pharmaceutical companies.
  2. These components are shipped from China to Mexico. Some of this is smuggled in (e.g. triad-to-cartel B2B relationships), some is legally shipped and acquired by cartels later. The Chinese government may or may not be facilitating this process.
  3. The actual fentanyl is produced by the Mexican cartels, in drug labs throughout Mexico.
  4. Fentanyl is smuggled into the US over the land border. The potency of fentanyl means tiny volumes comprise many doses so this is not very hard to get away with on a useful scale, much easier than basically any other drug.
  5. Once in the US, the fentanyl is distributed around the country through traditional criminal channels until it eventually reaches the street-level dealers.

This consensus ignores the vast amounts of fentanyl being produced in Canada and coming across the wild Northern border.

It's drug money being laundered through real estate propping up Vancouver and Toronto housing prices.

Closer and closer to the Day of the Rake.

Fifty-four Forty, all the way to Hudson Bay.

I know that Trump's been saying this, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly wrong -- mainly because it's approximately as hard to get precursors into Canada as it is to get them directly into the US; also while we do have our own homegrown gangs their capacity is pretty limited compared to the cartel scene in Mexico.

You are certainly wrong about the real estate <-> drug money pipeline; this is rare enough to be negligible (mom & pop stuff) -- the main laundering going on (in the western part of the country anyways) is people trying to hide money from the Chinese government. Maybe you have real estate confused with casinos?

You are very right, thanks for adding that. It’s a similar path of Chinese pharmaceuticals -> drug gangs with labs -> smuggled across the land border. The “essentially all through Mexico” theory is a few years out of date; I don’t know how much of that is actual change on the ground and how much is just increased awareness of northern-border drug running. I do think the majority is still assumed to be coming from Mexico but the Canadian side is very much not negligible.

Weren't most of these boats carrying cocaine rather than fent?

Ah. In that case, I think a missile is overkill. They should have been given an expedited visa instead.

anyone who thinks we should give drug smugglers free reign is not.

Or, you know, we could take them prisoner?

To what end? Is one of these boat guys going to give us GPS coordinates on the Venezuelan El Chapo and then we are going to send in a SEAL team into Venezuela? Otherwise, a Hellfire is $150k, transporting these folks from a shipwreck to the US already probably costs about that. Housing, prosecuting, imprisoning, then deporting them 10 years later would cost several million per head.

Not only shouldn't they be taken prisoner, the strikes should be also on the plantation, the reprocessing "factories" (dudes with a bunch of diesel and metal drums). The strikes should extend to the cartel leaders, their homes and their families.

What did their families do?

Not worth the wasted fuel and detention costs.

Or, you know, we could take them prisoner?

There are significant logistical difficulties in doing this before the boat has been hit by a missile. Afterwards, they apparently have been, when reasonably possible.

If you're referring to the purported double-tap specifically, well, is there any good reason to think such a thing happened? You're not seriously taking an anonymous anti-Trump report from the Washington Post at face value in 2025, are you? One so perfectly timed with a Democrat Party psyop that it was almost certainly coordinated? Pity that CIA-Afghani dude went and shot a couple of National Guardsmen who were following "illegal according to Democrat Senator winking and nudging" orders. Really messed up the flow of the news cycle.

You're not seriously taking an anonymous anti-Trump report from the Washington Post at face value in 2025, are you?

The WH confirmed it:

WASHINGTON, Dec 1 (Reuters) - The White House on Monday defended a U.S. admiral's decision to conduct multiple strikes on an alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessel in September, saying he had Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's authorization, even as critics questioned the legality of a strike on survivors. The Washington Post had reported that a second strike was ordered to kill two survivors from the initial strike and to comply with an order by Hegseth that everyone be killed.

President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he would not have wanted a second strike on the boat and said Hegseth denied giving such an order.

But White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Monday that Hegseth had authorized Admiral Frank Bradley to conduct the strikes on September 2.

"Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated," Leavitt said.

...

My dude, that whole quote is pure "The media rarely lies, just carefully weaves un- and half-truths like a wicked fey. Meet them with fire and cold iron."

And there's actually still plenty of room for straight up lies in what you posted. That first sentence is a masterclass in smuggled assumptions and sleight-of-hand implication. But no, there is nothing remotely resembling "confirmation" in that quote. What you are seeing is your own motivated reasoning, in a mirror.

Do you read the things you post?

60% of the time, every time. Is this a complaint that the WH confirmed the second strike occurred, but disputed Hegseth's orders?

That's the most obvious problem:

The Washington Post had reported that a second strike was ordered to kill two survivors from the initial strike and to comply with an order by Hegseth that everyone be killed.

and

"Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated," Leavitt said.

Are not completely incompatible, but they're very far from confirmation, and in some ways very specifically in contradiction ("ensure the boat was destroyed"). And Hegseth's specific denial isn't much reason to be generous -- he's a politician! -- but it by definition can not be confirmation.

More subtly, "double-tap" has a specific meaning. While no one's using the strict 'hitting a bomb site to hit first responders' bit, here, it matters very heavily whether the second shot was solely targeting survivors or targeting material; this distinction would be a major difference in between a war crime and a legitimate (if not necessarily ethical) strike. This, likewise, wasn't confirmed by the White House.

Can it even be a war crime when it's not an official war?

More comments

anyone who thinks we should give drug smugglers free reign is not.

You know that's not the actual argument being made right? There's a lot of room between "just blow up boats because we said they had drugs" and "do nothing"

Most of the concern is whether or not they're even carrying drugs, something that the admin has not been forthcoming with evidence for to the extent that they even send back survivors instead of prosecuting them.

But ok, let's say that they are drug boats. Is the response to that calling them terrorists and murdering them anyway? People who sell drugs are not killing people, because drugs can not kill people in the same way guns can not just kill people. Drug deaths are suicides by the irresponsible drug users, whether on purpose or on accident. People may feel shameful if their father or brother or daughter or whoever ends up as a druggie and ODs, but blaming the person who sold them the drugs is like when leftists blame gun stores for shootings.

That doesn't mean we should or have to be legalizing them, there is no constitutional right to either use or sell drugs but the argument being used currently by the Trump admin is one of poor victims who aren't responsible for their own drug additions, and they need to be protected from the "terrorists" who provide the druggies the goods they want. An easier way to think about it is with a lesser harm, like if someone were to proclaim we should start rounding up Nestle and Coca Cola shareholders for victimizing poor Americans with obesity, because offering high sugar snacks and drinks is damaging their health. It's the same logic, they provide an addictive product that Americans use to hurt themselves with so are they not corn syrup terrorists?

We could ban high glycemic index products and we could punish people who kept selling them anyway because likewise there is no constitutional right to them. But calling the sellers terrorists for something the "victims" choose to do to themselves is nonsense. We ban those products so people can't hurt themselves from their own stupid decisions.

Is the response to that calling them terrorists and murdering them anyway?

Yes please. I think that due process should only be reserved for citizens and people in US legally.

But ok, let's say that they are drug boats. Is the response to that calling them terrorists and murdering them anyway? People who sell drugs are not killing people, because drugs can not kill people in the same way guns can not just kill people. Drug deaths are suicides by the irresponsible drug users, whether on purpose or on accident. People may feel shameful if their father or brother or daughter or whoever ends up as a druggie and ODs, but blaming the person who sold them the drugs is like when leftists blame gun stores for shootings.

I don't find this convincing, for the same reason that a gun dealer smuggling weapons into Somalia is, as far as I'm concerned, killing people. Sure, they didn't shoot anyone. "Guns don't kill people, people do, unless it's a Sig" etc etc.

More importantly, drugs aren't made alike. A group of college kids or business people doing lines of coke in a bathroom stall aren't trying to kill themselves, any more than someone ordering a shot of vodka is. Unfortunately, due to the sheer ridiculous potency of fentanyl, even microscopic contamination, say the dealer being less than scrupulous about washing hands, can leave those poor bastards ODing on the floor.

Drugs are not made alike. Someone smoking weed, doing coke or dropping molly before a concert is in a very different reference class to people shooting up heroin/fent or smoking crack pipes.

Accidental ODing from taking an entirely different drug is closer to dying of a peanut allergy after ordering gummy bears. It's not suicide.

I particularly dislike fent because it's like the Worst Drug Imaginable, and because it screws over even people who want to stay away from it. Thankfully it's not common in the UK, and the Albanians keep the coke clean.

Drugs are not made alike. Someone smoking weed, doing coke or dropping molly before a concert is in a very different reference class to people shooting up heroin/fent or smoking crack pipes.

Accidental ODing from taking an entirely different drug is closer to dying of a peanut allergy after ordering gummy bears. It's not suicide.

I particularly dislike fent because it's like the Worst Drug Imaginable, and because it screws over even people who want to stay away from it. Thankfully it's not common in the UK, and the Albanians keep the coke clean.

Agreed with you on all of this. As far as I know, almost no one intentionally takes Fentanyl, because it's not fun and it's pretty much straight poison. They take it accidentally because it gets mixed in with other drugs.

This situation is dicey. As I understand it, most of US cocaine comes from South America and especially Venezuela these days. They don't need to bother with Fentanyl, cocaine is plenty cheap enough there already, the only hard part is getting it into the US. So these drug boats are probably just carrying cocaine. However, after it's into the US, it gets mixed in with fentanyl by dealers here who want to make extra profit. The Fentanyl comes from Mexico or China, and it's a lot harder to stop because it comes in such small quantities and we have less power to use military force against those countries.

Using lethal force against a fentanyl dealer seems justified. Using lethal force against a coke dealer seems like massive overkill. In this case... maybe that's the only way to stop the fentanyl from being used? I don't know, seems like a trolley problem.

As far as I know, almost no one intentionally takes Fentanyl, because it's not fun and it's pretty much straight poison.

You are incorrect. I have many clients who smoke 10-100 fentanyl pills (in the form of fake oxy pills) per day.

why do they do that? why not oxy or heroin? how are they even still alive?

America's tent cities are full of such fent users. It is very, very cheap and easy to obtain. Far cheaper and easier than oxy or heroin. Like all narcotics, one can build up a tolerance.

I don't find this convincing, for the same reason that a gun dealer smuggling weapons into Somalia is, as far as I'm concerned, killing people. Sure, they didn't shoot anyone. "Guns don't kill people, people do, unless it's a Sig" etc etc.

There are people who make the argument that gun sellers should be held responsible for anything done with their product, but it's generally laughed out of American society. Especially by the right wing, given the long history of focusing on personal responsibilities.

But how about the other examples then? Are sugar companies terrorists? Are the tobacco and alcohol companies terrorists? They're all dangerous unhealthy products that get misused and abused, causing health damage and even death.

They're not as dangerous as most drugs sure, but they are pretty dangerous. Alcohol just off a quick Google search is estimated at "approximately 178,000 deaths per year are linked to excessive alcohol use.". That's 178k lives annually, some of them course not even the drinkers own life like people hit by drunk driving. Were the teens in my high school hit and killed by drunk drivers years ago victims of Alcohol-terrorism by the store who sold the drunk a dangerous product? Kids died because of it, so using the same logic it seems like a yes. I'm sure the alcohol manufacturers were well aware that some of their drunk customers go on to drunk drive and hit other people at times.

There are people who make the argument that gun sellers should be held responsible for anything done with their product, but it's generally laughed out of American society. Especially by the right wing, given the long history of focusing on personal responsibilities.

But how about the other examples then? Are sugar companies terrorists? Are the tobacco and alcohol companies terrorists? They're all dangerous unhealthy products that get misused and abused, causing health damage and even death.

Well, there's a reason why I went with the example of arms dealers circumventing international law to smuggle drugs into a war zone with an ongoing genocide. I think Colt or H&K are entirely above board. Cars kill people too, and I don't blame Honda as long as they met government safety standards.

With alcohol and cigarettes, everyone knows what they're getting into. Society beats into your head the fact that you're almost certainly strictly better off not touching them, but hey, you're a free man, and if you're an adult that's your choice. I like that. I also believe that most currently illegal drugs should be held to the same standard.

The arguments you bring up are emotive and sway the innumerate. I am okay with greater than zero people dying because of their choices, and that point it becomes a question of quantity, not quality. Swimming pools kill kids too.

By those standards, a fent dealer is closer to someone aiding and abetting a genocide. Someone selling weed and coke at Burning Man is not. That's my two cents.

By those standards, a fent dealer is closer to someone aiding and abetting a genocide. Someone selling weed and coke at Burning Man is not. That's my two cents.

By raw numbers, junk food companies kill and injure way more citizens a year than fentanyl does. They have massive lobbying arms to get themselves into schools (where they clog our childrens arteries and make them unable to exercise well and ugly), remain on programs like SNAP, and get funneled government money.

And Google says

Tobacco use is responsible for over 480,000 deaths per year in the United States,

In raw numbers, that's about 6.5x as deadly as fentanyl! And some of those are secondhand smoking, people who didn't choose to be harmed by cigarettes unlike an addict ODing.

Why aren't we drone striking the tobacco companies? They kill half a million citizens a year, and there's not a "legitimate use" for cigarettes.

I think you're conflating "harm" with "violence" and ignoring the role of consent and information asymmetry.

If I sell you a car that I know has a 100% chance of breaking down in ten years, I'm a crappy salesman selling a mediocre product. If I sell you a car that has a 1% chance of exploding the moment you turn the key, I am a murderer. The total number of people inconvenienced or harmed by the first scenario might be higher in aggregate, but we treat the second scenario differently because of the variance and the violation of expectation.

Tobacco is the first car. It is a slow-motion suicide pact. The transaction costs are transparent. The package literally says it will kill you! Nobody smoking cigarettes in the West in 2025 AD is under the illusion that it's good for your health.

The user makes a trade of "feeling good now" against "dying of lung cancer in 2050" and society generally allows people to make bad intertemporal trades. We might tax it to recoup the externalities, but we acknowledge the agency of the user.

Fentanyl is the exploding car.

First, there is the lemon market problem. A huge percentage of fentanyl deaths are people who thought they were buying Xanax, Percocet, or cocaine. In those cases, the dealer is effectively poisoning the customer through fraud. If McDonald's started slipping cyanide into 1 in every 10,000 Big Macs to save on meat costs, we would not fine them. We would arrest the board of directors and likely see the company dismantled by the state. That is not "selling an unhealthy product" but rather "killing people" or at least criminal negligence.

Second, even for the willing user, the margin of error is nonexistent. A cigarette smoker cannot accidentally smoke a single cigarette that kills them instantly. A heroin user in the pre-fentanyl era had a reasonable grasp of their dosage. Fentanyl requires pharmacy-grade blending equipment to be safe. Mixing it in a bathtub in Sinaloa guarantees hot spots where a specific dose is instantly fatal. Selling this product is akin to selling a game of Russian Roulette disguised as a sedative.

Finally, there's the state capacity argument regarding your drone strike comment. We don't drone strike Philip Morris because Philip Morris submits to the jurisdiction of US courts. If they break the law, we sue them. If they hide evidence, we fine them. They exist within the Leviathan. The cartels exist outside of it. They enforce their business model with beheadings and bribery, effectively declaring themselves a rival sovereign. You can't sue a cartel in small claims court for wrongful death. When an entity places itself outside the law and uses violence to enforce its will, the state responds with military force rather than police action.

The tobacco executive is selling a legal vice, and everyone knows it's a vice. The fentanyl smuggler is selling a variance-heavy poison often disguised as something else, while actively warring against the state.

In raw numbers, that's about 6.5x as deadly as fentanyl! And some of those are secondhand smoking, people who didn't choose to be harmed by cigarettes unlike an addict ODing.

About 10% of the deaths are attributable to second-hand smoking. I think that's terrible, but that's an equilibrium reached by society on the basis of decades of litigation and regulation. We've cracked down heavily on most cases of second hand smoking. You can't harm everyone else in the restaurant without being asked to stop or getting into legal trouble. I wouldn't be averse to even stronger resistrictions.

I care not just about the raw numbers, but harm per capita, preservation of individual liberty, and also whether the industry is doing harm after submitting to regulation, or despite it.

Actual cars are your exploding car though. Cars kill 40k people every year. An expected lifespan of 80 years times 40k people is 3.2 million, and the US population of around 350M people gives us a number not too far from 1%. And many of the people who die aren't even the person at fault in the car accident. So I think that part of the argument isn't quite right.

More comments

About 10% of the deaths are attributable to second-hand smoking.

This also feels like a solved problem. I can't think of the last time I was truly exposed to second hand smoke. There's still older waitresses with a time bomb in their lungs, but will there still be by 2040?

The coke is illegal, though, so the buyer can't quite claim consumer rights. If you're using it, you have to know that it might be smuggled from dubious places and laced with dubious chemicals, some of which can send you into OD.

There are people who make the argument that gun sellers should be held responsible for anything done with their product, but it's generally laughed out of American society. Especially by the right wing, given the long history of focusing on personal responsibilities.

If by "laughed out of society", you mean an opinion fervently held and actively implemented by half the country, in which pursuit they have proven willing and able to violate black-letter federal law and support the murder of innocents.

Drugs are not equivalent to guns. Drug dealing is not a victimless crime. Drug Cartels are a very close aproximate to classical examples of Hostis Humani Generis. But more damningly, even if these facts were not the case, even if the equivalency you are drawing were not entirely spurious, I am confident that you personally would be willing to offer people like them significantly more protection from the law than people like me no matter what I or my side says or does now or in the future, so I do not recognize value in preserving some hypothetical form of detente here. You will never be willing to treat me and mine with the care and respect you steadfastly insist must apply to narcoterrorists.

If by "laughed out of society", you mean an opinion fervently held and actively implemented by half the country, in which pursuit they have proven willing and able to violate black-letter federal law and support the murder of innocents.

Luckily they haven't been able to implement such laws well. Enshrining the same logic however is a great step to helping it happen!

Drugs are not equivalent to guns. Drug dealing is not a victimless crime.

Well yeah, people who choose to use drugs in a bad way hurt others/themselves. The same thing happens with guns and bullets.

Some people sold a gun by a gun shop will go home and use the gun to kill themselves or another person. That is not victimless, people died from the gun being sold. But is the gun shop responsible for that? Apparently yes, according to this logic, the seller is responsible for what the buyer chooses to do!

, I am confident that you personally would be willing to offer people like them significantly more protection from the law than people like me no matter what I or my side says or does now or in the future, so I do not recognize value in preserving some hypothetical form of detente here. You will never be willing to treat me and mine with the care and respect you steadfastly insist must apply to narcoterrorists.

There is no discussion to be had with such a victim complex. If you're so emotional about it as to actively admit you're making up your strawman ideas about me, then it's not gonna be productive. You don't change emotions with rational arguments, "no, I support due process with you as well and believe in personal responsibility for everyone" would not change a single thing that comes out of feelings.

Luckily they haven't been able to implement such laws well.

WE implemented laws perfectly well to preclude such lawsuits. Blues found those laws inconvenient and chose to ignore them, and have successfully done so. Perhaps you might have argued that doing so was a bad idea, and would undermine necessary norms, but if so it appears your arguments did not carry the day. Alternatively, you believe that it is my tribe that should adhere to norms, and your tribe that should adjudicate exceptions. It hardly matters which is the case; you cannot now argue that Reds should not do a thing, because otherwise Blues might do the thing they've repeatedly done and are currently doing. One cannot endorse a compromise that has already been repeatedly violated.

Enshrining the same logic however is a great step to helping it happen!

I reiterate that all evidence indicates that such detente does not exist and never will. Blues will do and have done what they want to do. Neither law nor custom nor social norms restrain them. Trading off my tribe's values in pursuit of some mythical compromise is evidently unworkable; such compromises last until Blues find them inconvenient, and then they are swept aside.

The way my tribe will keep our guns is by systematically undermining and removing the legal and social mechanisms that might be used to take them, which we are currently well on our way to doing, and by making it abundantly clear that we will burn the country to ashes before we allow Blues to disarm us, which we are also well on our way to doing. At no point is any degree of cooperation with Blues required for this process. At no point do formal legal mechanisms determine this process; we already know that the Constitution and the laws supposedly based upon it are a sham.

Well yeah, people who choose to use drugs in a bad way hurt others/themselves.

"Bad way" and "hurt others" are terms of no fixed meaning, and I have no reason to believe that you and I share a common understanding of them sufficient to draw comparisons in this way. More generally, there does not appear to be an objective measure of social harm, and Blues have already demonstrated that they are willing to abruptly and drastically redefine what is and is not actionable social harm overnight.

Some people sold a gun by a gun shop will go home and use the gun to kill themselves or another person. That is not victimless, people died from the gun being sold.

I do not agree that this is a valid chain of causality, and I do not believe that you would accept chains of causality much, much less ambiguous if they cut against your tribal interests. For example, Judges frequently release prisoners convicted of multiple violent felonies who then commit additional violent felonies. Would you agree that the judge more directly causes such violent felonies than the employees of the gun shop in your example? Do you support the recent push to hold judges accountable for the crimes of convicts they release? If not, why not? Such releases are absolutely not victimless, and the judge has far better evidence of the nature of the convict they release than the gun store owner does of a random customer.

Apparently yes, according to this logic, the seller is responsible for what the buyer chooses to do!

It seems to me that the fewer valid uses a buyer has for the thing being bought, the more this logic obtains, and the more valid uses they have, the less it obtains. Guns have numerous valid uses to the degree that, if we are currently pretending that it matters, legal ownership of them is specifically enshrined in the Constitution. "getting super high and physiologically addicted" is not nearly so valid a use as "defending myself and my family from illegitimate violence."

There is no discussion to be had with such a victim complex.

Assessing the values and motives of others based on what they say and do is not a victim complex. Your rhetorical strategies do not appear to me to be particularly complex. You pick an issue and frame it in whatever way is maximally-convenient to the argument you wish to make at this particular moment, with no apparent regard to arguments you've made before or will make in the future. You do not appear to have principles deeper than "Who, Whom". And I disagree, there is much discussion to be had: see above. I appreciate that this may not be the discussion you particularly wish to have, but that is your business, not mine.

In any case, it does not seem to me that pointing to clear examples that contradict your statements constitutes "emotional argument" or a "victim complex". You are arguing that my side should stop doing bad things. I am disagreeing with you that what we are doing is bad, and further that your side does worse than what you accuse us of, much less what we have actually done.

Alternatively, you believe that it is my tribe that should adhere to norms, and your tribe that should adjudicate exceptions. It hardly matters which is the case; you cannot now argue that Reds should not do a thing, because otherwise Blues might do the thing they've repeatedly done and are currently doing. One cannot endorse a compromise that has already been repeatedly violated.

Politics is not so simplistic that there's just "red tribe" and "blue tribe". Political parties may coalesce around it as compromises, but political philosophies don't. Also "person disagrees with me on topics" is not "person is in other tribe and should not be listened to and inherits the sins of the outsiders"

This black and white thinking helps to underline how your argumentation here is backed by emotion. You push your grievances with others onto me.

At no point do formal legal mechanisms determine this process; we already know that the Constitution and the laws supposedly based upon it are a sham.

This is actually a great example of how political philosophies aren't so tribal. Try saying "the constitution is a sham" to your average Republican and they'll firmly disagree with you. There are lots of proud and patriotic conservatives who believe in the constitution and traditional American classical liberal values.

Most citizens are not in some cultural war obsessed "burn everything down, fuck the constitution, we're at war" mindset.

It seems to me that the fewer valid uses a buyer has for the thing being bought, the more this logic obtains, and the more valid uses they have, the less it obtains. Guns have numerous valid uses to the degree that, if we are currently pretending that it matters, legal ownership of them is specifically enshrined in the Constitution. "getting super high and physiologically addicted" is not nearly so valid a use as "defending myself and my family from illegitimate violence."

Ok here's a big example then

Google says

Tobacco use is responsible for over 480,000 deaths per year in the United States,

In raw numbers, that's about 6.5x as deadly as fentanyl in terms of how many people die a year! And some of those are secondhand smoking, people who didn't choose to be harmed by cigarettes unlike an addict ODing.

Why aren't we drone striking the tobacco companies? They kill half a million citizens a year, and there's not a "legitimate use" for cigarettes.

  • -11
More comments

There are people who make the argument that gun sellers should be held responsible for anything done with their product, but it's generally laughed out of American society.

It was absolutely not laughed out. It was part of a serious lawfare push from the left to bankrupt and destroy the entire domestic gun manufacturing industry. The right ended up passing legislation to specifically ban that kind of "process is the punishment and maybe we win the lottery" fishing lawsuit.

Didn’t the lawful commerce in arms act predate gun control as a political fault line? It basically codified that guns are inherently hazardous and so manufacturers aren’t liable for misuse, the same standards exist for cars.

LCIAA was passed in 2005. Gun control has been a political fault line at least since the Clinton administration and its attempted gun control policies, notably the Assault Weapons Ban and the Waco raid a decade and a half prior. The 90s also saw numerous attempts to use spurious lawsuits to bankrupt the firearms industry. LCIAA was supposed to forestall those efforts once and for all. That it did not is seriously damaging to the standard narrative of how our system of laws operates.

You left off the part where that legislation has been pointedly ignored and that the lawsuits it banned have continued.

It was one of those situations where I was pretty sure that was the case, but couldn't recall any specific details, so I couldn't be sure I wasn't just making assumptions.

Let me guess; Hawaii and NY?

Connecticut for one of the more prominent examples, Massachusetts for another. The lawsuit against Remington was eventually settled for $73 million, the lawsuit by Mexico was eventually struck down by the supreme court after being upheld by some lower courts.

I think the right wing can be too cavalier about this, but there's definitely a spectrum no matter where you personally place the line.

On guns: from selling to a man who tells you outright 'I want this gun to shoot my wife' to selling to an army known for indiscriminate mass murders, to selling to an allied military, to selling to society in general knowing that some may misuse it, to selling only to men of good background with good references.

On alcohol: from selling spirits to the man whose family came into your corner shop to beg you not to sell to him, to the off-license on the motorway, to society in general, to society parties only.

And so on. "Either you hold people responsible for what's done with their products or you don't," seems like a false binary.

Guns also aren't addictive in and of themselves, FWIW.

I know many people who would disagree.

This response does not surpise me, but can we agree that the mechanisms between these types of addictions differ significantly?

Most of the concern is whether or not they're even carrying drugs, something that the admin has not been forthcoming with evidence for to the extent that they even send back survivors instead of prosecuting them.

Is it? I mean I've seen that expressed from time to time, but isn't it generally indistinguishable from generalized anti-Trump complaints like opposition to law enforcement and immigration enforcement, being pro-nonwhite persons, etc? The Mark Kelly statement which some on the right are referring to as the "seditious six" seems to me to be something he's probably said before and seems to fit perfectly into statements made about basically every Trump action of all time.

If South American cartels were running guns into the US that were used in the deaths of over 100k Americans per years, would you be ok with the government using lethal force on the gun runners?

If South American cartels were running guns into the US that were used in the deaths of over 100k Americans per years, would you be ok with the government using lethal force on the gun runners?

If US manufacturers and gun shops were selling guns in the US, and the guns they made and sold were involved in the deaths of ~48,000 a year and used in untold numbers of robberies and other crime, would you be ok with the government using lethal force on the gun shop and manufacturers?

It seems like the difference here is

American: Perfectly good, not responsible for anything. Foreigner: Evil, full responsibility

Even if they're doing the exact same thing and selling the exact same products.

If US manufacturers and gun shops were selling guns in the US, and the guns they made and sold were involved in the deaths of ~48,000 a year and used in untold numbers of robberies and other crime, would you be ok with the government using lethal force on the gun shop and manufacturers?

Let's specify "illegal ghost guns" just to highlight the faultlines. In which case, no, because I am not opposed to unregistered ghost guns. But I would bet that approximately 0% of the people upset about the narcoboats would bat an eye if the US government slaughtered a warehouse full of guys 3D printing guns with no warning or warrant or evidence.

Even if they're doing the exact same thing and selling the exact same products.

Cocaine is not legal for sale from US producers. The point of that hypothetical was to change the object-value-valence (guns:good/bad, drugs:good/bad) and see what people's moral intuition came up with.

Let's specify "illegal ghost guns" just to highlight the faultlines.

So is harm only harm if it's been designated illegal? Seems like we could solve all the drug problems just by legalizing them then.

Wait no, that would be stupid and the distinction drawn here would be equally stupid.

So is harm only harm if it's been designated illegal? Seems like we could solve all the drug problems just by legalizing them then.

Did you see how I answered the question? I made it more extreme and then yeschaded it.

The strategy needs to make sense. More neocon war mongering and destroying countries leads to more chaos, drugs and migrants.

The sensible solution is to enforce borders and limit drugs/guns/migrants there. Turning Venezuela into another Afghanistan will just achieve what the Afghanistan war did, aka 10x their drug production. The US doesn't have to fight cartels, they just need to keep a secure border.

Trump is going for regime change in Venezuela, that means more chaos, more drugs and more refugees. The strategy should be a stable Venezuela and largely not caring about Venezuela while enforcing the border.

This is similar to when people living in a cave in Afghanistan were allowed to go to flight school in the US. The solution to 9/11 wasn't banning Afghans from the west, it was the patriot act, a surveillance state and failed wars.

If South American cartels were running guns into the US that were used in the deaths of over 100k Americans per years, would you be ok with the government using lethal force on the gun runners?

Only in direct response to normal contraband-interception-operations being attacked with lethal force. Declaring war launching a Special Military Operation against smugglers "Narco-Terrorists" Foreign Terror Organizations is fucked up.

Only in direct response to normal contraband-interception-operations being attacked with lethal force.

Including in this scenario, where "normal contraband interception operations" are completely impractical?

Are you familiar with the heat map meme?

The heat map meme confuses me. According to this, the instructions are that each circle includes the ones inside it, i.e. liberals are at most guilty of caring about too many things, as opposed to too far things. But then this implies that the circles are exclusive of each other.

Apparently, the description of the task in the Methods section and the supplementary notes is in fact different. I'd assume most participants would follow the actual handout text rather than what the researchers claim they explained.

Apparently apparently, there were two tasks related to the moral circle and the heat map meme is about the simplified "extent" task, where the participants were simply asked to click on the rung that includes everything they care about.

P.P.S. Why is there no circle numbered 0 and labeled "myself only"? I'd like to see what the distribution between that and "immediate family" would be.

The study is at best extremely poorly designed, but generated a convenient image that feels true regarding the actual nature of liberal emotivism rather than what liberals claim about their cares.

where the participants were simply asked to click on the rung that includes everything they care about.

Not just rung! Despite being, in theory, cohesive layers, people only clicked near the numbers.

Why is there no circle numbered 0 and labeled "myself only"?

The people that designed the study were idiots.

Most of the concern is whether or not they're even carrying drugs, something that the admin has not been forthcoming with evidence for...

There's not a ton of quad-outboard motorboats using that style of travel and large numbers of garbage-bagged wrapped cubic containers, as shown in the videos the administration has provided, and other countries have claimed to recover cocaine from the aftermath, but even if you don't trust either administration's assessments, from that Right-Wing Rag:

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela’s breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives said the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists or leaders of a cartel or gang.

to the extent that they even send back survivors instead of prosecuting them.

I'd be a little interest to understand what, exactly, that would work like.

Is the response to that calling them terrorists and murdering them anyway? People who sell drugs are not killing people, because drugs can not kill people in the same way guns can not just kill people.

The United States government ventilates the skulls of American citizens in predawn raids, while wearing masks and without clear 'police' markings and without any of the 'blaring messages saying to turn back' bullshit. I can't promise that absolutely every single person who suddenly cares about drug traffickers seems to have found their conscience, here. But if you've got an example, I'd like to see it.

Until then, that argument holds no water. That ship has sailed, exploded, and sunk to the seabed.

((That's doubly true given the common mix and mislabeling of various drugs by illegal sellers. Someone who decided to do cocaine only 'decided' to do fentanyl in the revealed preferences sense of not finding a better drug dealer.))

An easier way to think about it is with a lesser harm, like if someone were to proclaim we should start rounding up Nestle and Coca Cola shareholders for victimizing poor Americans with obesity, because offering high sugar snacks and drinks is damaging their health. It's the same logic, they provide an addictive product that Americans use to hurt themselves with so are they not corn syrup terrorists?

You're not presenting an argument, here.

the argument being used currently by the Trump admin is one of poor victims who aren't responsible for their own drug additions, and they need to be protected from the "terrorists" who provide the druggies the goods they want.

Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.

There's an interesting strain of Latin American thought that goes something like: America blames us for the drug gangs, when we're stuck with the drug gangs because of American demand for cocaine.

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