site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29311 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is not a deep dive or an analysis - though I suspect in future this topic will generate many.

Instead it is a placemarker. I see that there is a brouhaha of some sort unfolding at the Oklahoma state capitol today. Right-wing media sources characterize it as an invasion of the capitol building to keep the state legislature from voting on legislation which would outlaw medical gender transition for minors.

Other sources, including Fox News, characterize it as a protest inside the capitol rotunda during the governor's state of the state address, opposing several bills which have been introduced during the legislative session, and which the governor supports.

There is obvious incentive, from the Trumpy/populist right, to draw as many parallels with the January 6th event as possible.

There has previously been discussion at the old stomping ground about whether liberal protester/rioters were prosecuted to the same degree as conservatives.

I will be trying to watch this as best I can (not being in or from Oklahoma), as it seems it may present another datapoint for discussion. It will also be a demonstration of the degree to which the institutional right is willing to push culture war topics, and authorize the exercise of political power over dissenting minorities to force through right-favored results.

Protestors making a lot of noise in state capitol buildings is barely newsworthy. It happens all the time and right wingers get away with open carrying while doing so on a regular basis.

Dare we murmur "stochastic terrorism" or indeed "domestic terrorism", or is this protest completely not at all the same kind of thing as has been complained about for the past two years?

I think "domestic terrorism" would require an actual act of violence, above and beyond "protesting within the capitol building". Though there exist illegal things to do that are not terrorism -- for example, if these protestors had crossed police lines to protest in the capitol building, that would probably not be terrorism by itself, despite being very much Not Allowed.

I am not entirely clear on where the boundary for "stochastic terrorism" is drawn. Wiktionary gives the definition as the following:

The use of mass public communication, usually against a particular individual or group, which

  1. incites or inspires acts of terrorism which are statistically probable but happen seemingly at random,
  1. perpetuates fear through coverage of seemingly random acts of terrorism

By that definition, whether or not this is "stochastic terrorism" depends on whether it is statistically probable that protestors loudly protesting in the capitol building will incite or inspire an act of terrorism. Or possibly on whether the sort of communication that caused the protestors to loudly protest is likely to incite or inspire an act of terrorism.

I'd argue that the answer is "no" on both counts though. I think people are far too fast to cry "terrorism" when they actually mean "I don't like it" or "it has chilling effects".

Call me back when they try to hang the lieutenant governor and take a shit in the speakers office.

For future reference, is a guillotine equivalent to a gallows for this request?

Guillotine is worth double insurrection points.

There is one that travels around, so it should pop up again when protest season happens.

That's why the comparison to the George Floyd protests was reasonably successful

Was this actually successful? Democrats I know seem to have no problem treating one as saintly and the other as the worst thing since Hitler

Actually I am going to suggest, to anyone planning on making a Big Book of Successes of the 21st Century, that they leave "the republicans eventually convinced Mitt Romney to stop marching with people fostering racial hatred and looting cities" out altogether. Same goes for "avoid getting asked about black lives matter by letting rioters burn and loot cities until they get bored "

Right-wing media sources characterize it as an invasion of the capitol building to keep the state legislature from voting on legislation which would outlaw medical gender transition for minors.

This isn't quite accurate, since people who are between the ages of 18 and 26 are not minors, the bill that is the main object of protest would outlaw any kind of gender transition procedures or referrals for individuals under 26.

Looking at memes, Reddit, and Twitter's response to the dating habits of Leonardo DiCaprio would lead me to believe that people under 26 are minors, lol. If someone can't consent to sitting on Leo's dick, can they really consent to having their own dick removed?

Something about the brain not being "fully mature" until then, I believe.

It's pretty funny to watch people pick up and drop that argument in a heartbeat depending on what they want to do.

@Eetan is, sadly, not correct.

Republican state Sen. David Bullard said he chose the age of 26 due to scientific findings that say the brain does not fully develop and mature until the mid- to late 20s, according to a press release.

It’s scientific cherry-picking. The timeline of brain maturity changes with lawmakers’ opinions on a given subject.

source.

Why did they pick 26?

Turning 26: Health Insurance Guide for Those Aging Off Their Parents’ Plan

Man, with friends like these...

The last paragraph doesn’t seem related to the rest of your piece.

Oh, joy.

Given my time spent in the state I feel obligated to keep an eye on this. I can only hope that it remains somewhat sane.

Demonstrators were let in by Oklahoma State Troopers and Capitol security staff. Each person walked through a metal detector…

Capitol security staff was in contact with the leaders of the protest and on multiple occasions, the leaders were giving direction to the crowd about where they could stand (how close to the House chamber door) and even telling the group to be quiet once the State of the State began.

By the time Governor Stitt concluded, the crowd had dispersed and gone home.

Huh. Looks like everything was aboveboard, perhaps even legal. I don’t see how this can be spun as particularly dangerous or militant. Consider me pleasantly surprised.

Sounds like some of the security staff were in on the insurrection.

I almost included a crack about the deep state in action.

In all seriousness, there are two ways I can see this spun. The first is painting cooperation as collaboration, suggesting that allowing them into the building was an unfair bit of favoritism. I don’t think that’ll hold up.

The second would be more of an aesthetic argument, a sort of point-and-laugh at what I’m sure are not the most sympathetic protestors. Compare the Satanist interviews televised when the OK Capitol was in the news for religious liberty: look hard enough, and you’ll find some people willing to make fools of themselves.

Am I missing something? Weren't the J6 protesters also let in by the Capitol police? Didn't we also have media takes about how the police is in on it?

I think quite a few people (some of whom are probably being charged) did just walk in well after this (sometime after 2:15, by @netstack's timeline) -- the barricades had all been removed and the police inside the building were interacting with people in a mostly-friendly manner so long as they stayed out of secured areas and didn't trash anything.

Uh…no?

12:53 p.m.: Rioters overwhelm police along the outer perimeter west of the Capitol building, pushing aside temporary fencing. Some protesters immediately follow, while others, at least initially, remain behind and admonish the others: "Don't do it. You're breaking the law." By 1:03 p.m., a vanguard of rioters have overrun three layers of barricades and have forced police officers to the base of the west Capitol steps.

1:50 p.m.: D.C. Metropolitan Police on-scene incident commander Robert Glover declares a riot.

2:00 p.m.: The mob removes the last barrier protecting the east side of the Capitol.

2:12 p.m.: The first rioter enters the Capitol through the broken window in the Senate wing of the building, opening a door for others.

2:14 p.m.: Rioters chase a lone Capitol Police officer up northwest stairs, where there are doors to the Senate chamber in both directions, as police inside the chamber attempt to lock doors.

2:15 p.m.: Rioters use a hammer to break and open a door.

From wikipedia. Do these sound like police cooperation to you?

I do remember accusations that heavier responses were withheld for political reasons. Mostly about the National Guard, not the Capitol or DC police. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were claims that the police sandbagged, too. They don’t look well supported.

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