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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The right to peacefully protest is a direct Constitutional right. A direct right. I think there's reasonable room to disagree about, and interesting discussion to be had, regarding the line between obstruction and protest. From that framing, obviously protesting/obstructing is risky, sure, but that's an official state-approved exercise of rights as much as free speech is or as much as the right to a jury trial. There's considerable meat to the argument that a right left unexercised is effectively a dead right.
But can we agree that sabotaging ICE arrests and barricading streets falls well on the wrong side of that line? Peaceful protest is when you see how many people you can get to go to the town square and wave a sign to make it clear they're unhappy.
Of course, for all I know you may be right about the legalities of it. I personally think that the American Constitution is a document considerably flawed by being written by people who had persuaded themselves that it was appropriate to wage violent revolution over being asked to pay a couple of pennies on the pound of tax to repay the money that had been spent defending their homes from invasion. American philosophy of rights and liberty has been flawed from inception by its inability to agree on when you should sit down and shut up vs. when you should erupt and slaughter all the people down the road who you don't like and take their stuff, which is why e.g. Americans also have a direct constitutional right to free speech surrounded by a penumbra of all the things you aren't allowed to say and when you aren't allowed to say them.
That is not to say that American ideas have nothing to give to the world, far from it, but American constitutionality seems like Christianity to me in that it is an essentially apocalyptic doctrine which has survived and thrived for hundreds of years only because it gets interpreted so loosely.
In all honesty, I'd say the line between appropriate and inappropriate depends entirely against the injustice being fought. Revolution against the government/terrorism is murder, but justifiable against if the government in question is Hitler's Germany. During the civil rights era, sit ins were technically trespassing by refusing to leave. The Underground Railroad was abetting the escape of slaves. I guess I'd like to know what your thoughts are on those illegal activities.
The American Constitution was written by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules. The thing about standing in the town square waving a sign is that most of the time it doesn't work. I think that you know that, based on your comments about getting into politics or accepting that you've lost. So to what extent do you believe citizens are enabled to seek effective political change outside of an election cycle?
According to the latest political poll, 52% of the public disapprove of ICE, 39% approve, and 10% have no opinion. To what extent is the government obligated to respect the wishes of the people? Is there some level of unpopularity to which Trump should change course? Does a citizen have any recourse if he doesn't?
That's a lot lower than I thought it would be. Sure, regarding public opinion, 40% of that is "strongly disagree"... but then, how much of that is distinct from the anger that the government would take their slaves away to begin with?
So like what ICE is doing now, basically (though yes, a lack of intent to escape is irrelevant in this case; you will be "freed" regardless). In fact, they're going into the places where the slaves are and removing them from their owners (ostensibly, the <52% of the American public that feels they gain material benefit from their presence) with violence from/against slave-owners being a very narrow exception, not the rule. I mean, what, about 20 dead for 2 million deported? A 1:100,000 KDR [so to speak] for an armed operation of this type and size is absurdly successful.
I'm sure John Brown would be proud, if somewhat conflicted- and I find it ironic that the people who go out of their way to name their organizations after him are actually the ones most aligned with the historic Confederate cause, while the losers of the resulting Civil War over it are now proud Unionists (who fly the flags of its vanquished enemies in its defense [lol wtf?]). Of course, the CSA was formed by people who believed their aims could only be reached in their lifetimes by breaking the rules, too- it's just that they lost, so they're the bad guys. I think that's how that works.
It's a State's Rights [to keep slaves] issue.
They can use the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, or the ammo box (or other boxes of that type; like the pedal box). They're all legal to keep and bear for this purpose, and all 4 have been used in this conflict, on both sides. (And yes, the fact that the citizens that want this are existentially in conflict with the ammo box, and that's inextricably linked to their decision to retain slaves, is relevant. The people who would normally be depended on to use the ammo box are all strongly in favor of anti-slavery measures.)
This is a fascinating example of using creative language to frame war as peace and weakness as strength. Of all of the things that could be argued to be negatives of lax immigration policy, arguing that it's bad for the migrant is certainly a choice. With an offhand parenthesis that intent to escape is irrelevant, you casually steer away from the tiny detail that one of the defining concepts of slavery is the slave's lack of choice in the matter.
And uh, A KDR is a useful tool to measure the effectiveness of a military operation, but an odd standard to use for measuring enforcement of what is normally a misdemeanor. I'd argue that any number of deaths starts to make me ask questions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sometimes you reach a point where no more accommodation is possible, when you wage war on your own society (revolution). When that time comes, all bets are off.
Before that, well, that's hard. Emotionally, morally, there are things I approve of and I don't approve of. Arguably, I am doing sabotage already by quietly working to direct my employer towards business directions that I approve of and away from directions that I don't approve of. I'm a child of my culture and my age, and I can't be otherwise.
Intellectually, I believe in the case above - that you simply cannot run a country on the principle that 'the line between appropriate and inappropriate depends entirely against the injustice being fought'. A country simply doesn't work when everyone feels entitled to have an opinion on matters over their pay grade. I worked in Japan for many years and in many ways I miss it bitterly, because it worked and the reason it worked was that people acted together towards a common goal without individually deciding whether to permit it, subvert it or oppose it.
British schools used to be pretty unpleasant, and they taught children very sternly about Honour and Duty and Honesty. After WW1 and WW2 and it was suggested that this teaching had turned Englishmen into sheep, ready to be slaughtered, and the teaching system was repurposed towards self-confidence and self-expression. Japan has a pretty similar system today, though explicitly pacifistic. They teach children to fit in and to work together and not to put themselves above the group, and by all accounts that teaching can be pretty unpleasant too. But it helped make Britain great and it seemed to work pretty well for Japan, and I think any answers to our current omnicrisis have to address the fact that we have been made ungovernable by the philosophy you describe.
Which makes me a rebel and a hypocrite, so I can't really answer your question, but at least I'm not blockading the police.
I would say that the entirety of America's history has operated on this principle, and it has endured. It came close to failing during the civil war, but Motte pessimism aside, I don't think we're near that level yet. I would argue that the Civil Rights protests is an example of people manipulating the levers of public opinion through civil disruption and some intentional lawbreaking, and not it only did it not tear society apart, it was a pretty significant success.
I would say that your view inherently holds that the state is just, and by just I mean that your highest ideal is order. This represents an inherent trust in authority, which let's say a Russian wouldn't share. America is inherently founded on a certain distrust in authority.
I also have a question about "matters over their pay grade." Right now the scientific consensus is that gender affirmation is good and life saving. Now the general view of the Motte, and one I to some degree with, is that the doctors are ideologically captured. But some places have gone to the level that not affirming your child is legally considered child abuse. So whose pay grade is it to make these decisions? The doctors? The legislators? The parents? And to what degree does the parent have the right to not comply if they believe this is unjust?
It DID fail during the civil war, that's what a civil war is. There's a saying, "there's a great deal of ruin in a nation," and I think that goes 10x for America for various reasons: the USA realistically has a continent to itself and no serious rivals, it is gifted with oil + fertile farmland + good rivers + other natural resources beyond the dreams of any other country in the world except maybe Russia, and in a much more convenient form.
I don't actually mean to be too anti-American, I respect it more than comes across on this site because the site is pro-America enough that I end up providing the alternate view, but I think that America has a vast cushion for failure that other countries don't. More than that, though, @JeSuisCharlie posted the old-but-good Adam's quote that American society is suited only to a moral and religious people, and in practice I think he was expressing the same kind of sentiment. Think of it this way through the ages:
What I am getting at is that, in my reading, various factors conspired to keep the views of Americans reasonably homogenous on the level at which government was primarily operating, and that the one time this failed America had a civil war. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say,
This is getting to be a long comment and I'm nervous about losing it, so to answer the rest of your points very briefly:
I am not very keen on my state at the moment, and I certainly don't consider it just. I am a Reform voter, which is the closest the UK has to a 'blow it all up' party. Likewise I voted for Brexit, my feelings on trans and immigration are not in line with the state, and I spend perhaps 1 hour a day arguing politics on this website. I could justify it by saying that I am by hereditary class and education part of the group of people who absolutely are expected to have an opinion on matters like this, and that in that way it is in my 'pay grade'. But it would be more accurate to say that I am a hypocrite who intellectually believes that what I have said is true but can't hold to it. As the Operative of Serenity says, "there's no place there for me". It's one of the reasons I left Japan despite liking it so much.
Americans in many ways have a deeper trust in authority than almost any other country - apart from the Borderers they entirely lack the corrosive distrust you tend to see in Old World countries like Europe and Russia. What they distrust IMO is foreign authority, whether that be London or Washington.
(Epistemic confidence: low. I'm not sure I believe what I'm saying and I can think of lots of counterexamples.)
This is sort of what I'm getting it, in a 'fish have no word for water' way. When individual parents and doctors are making decisions like this (except to the extent that individual children to some extent have different needs), when legislators are deciding to coerce behaviour and we are debating whether parents have the right to resist that coercion, your country is already well on the way to breaking down. The mechanisms for achieving consensus have failed, and legislators/doctors/parents are engaged in inter-nicene brawl which is time-consuming and damaging to the medical profession plus every individual involved. Note that even Britain, which is dysfunctional in many ways, has been able to move relatively seamlessly and easily from 'transing the children is good' to 'transing the children is bad'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's my understanding that absent actually aiding a specific crime, it's perfectly legal albeit obnoxious to whistle and make people aware of police/ICE presence (lookout for a robbery no but generally warning people about ICE or a speed trap is fine) and is not sabotaging an arrest. Although you may get arrested anyways despite it being plainly unlawful for ICE to do so (personally I think the incentive structure regarding illegal arrests is pretty damn flawed but that's an issue for another day). Blocking a street on the other hand, against a specific patrol, is obstruction, yes. Blocking a street more generically is nominally a traffic crime and therefore not ICE jurisdiction, though obviously the line between those two is pretty weak. Blocking a street as part of a larger group is a different kind of discussion that has to do with "authorized" vs "unauthorized" protests and generally you can't march on a street that normally has traffic unless you have a permit.
It is historically true that the American rationale for when revolution is justified vs unjustified is a little muddled, although the Declaration of Independence attempts a standard. I mean, we did have a civil war over more or less that same issue. However speaking on the Constitution more broadly, despite some flaws I find it hard to argue too hard against it seeing as it's still the oldest democracy in the world. Norway is the second oldest and only dates to 1814 and even then it and many others typically went through far more extreme changes over the years to the core structure than ours did. The American Constitution notably stands virtually unchanged in its core formulation (the most significant change, in the long view, being merely senators being popularly elected). The rest were details, or adding in new rights, and not a fundamental reshaping of the balance of power or the structure of the checks and balances! This is quite rare. IIRC Belgium has a better claim and even that is almost 50 years later (amusingly they did somewhat the opposite than we did about 15 years ago, changing their senate from direct election to an assortment of regional parliaments).
I suppose it's fair to think that the loose interpretation helped its longevity, but to me rather it's that the checks and balances were generally done well, that the amendment process usually worked all right, and thus it's still a success I attribute to strength of structure, not looseness of structure. And although history is not a great experimental proving ground, that longevity is pretty decent evidence that at least something has worked. A lot of Americans at least are often surprised at how many democracies have had to toss out or totally rejigger their constitutions much more recently than you'd naively expect.
Blocking the road for ICE vehicles, on the other hand, absolutely is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Time, place, and manner restrictions, applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner, have been repeatedly held to be fully compliant with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to scream directly in someone's face, if that would be disorderly conduct in any other circumstance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link