site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30018 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 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.

5
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t know why gun rights advocates don’t just admit that yes, if all guns were confiscated and a very strict licensing regime was put in place gun homicides would likely drop substantially.

Because 'We're the baddies but there's so many of us we'll make it politically impossible for you to take our guns' is a lot less inspirational than 'We're martyrs watering the tree of liberty and defending ourselves from a tyrannical government.'

  • -27

Because 'We're the baddies but there's so many of us we'll make it politically impossible for you to take our guns'

You can be anti-gun and you can believe that gun advocates are wrong and on the wrong side, but tagging them "the baddies" is literally just a boo light. Argue better than this.

How about "Firearm ownership is literally written into the founding document of this country as a fundamental right and thus we are literally entitled to ignore your pleas for gun control unless and until you can garner sufficient political support to amend said document."

Since "we're trying to overturn a civil right that the very founders of the country thought important enough to specifically enshrine AND ignore the actual procedure for making changes to the founding document in the effort" isn't exactly inspiring either, and it's certainly accurate to describe the gun-control movement's approach to the issue.

Or in short, the deal is that we follow the rules set forth when the nation was created, and those rules happen to include this particular provision for gun rights, so amend it or, literally, GTFO to a country that is more politically suitable to your own beliefs.

The current US constitution was the second "founding document" for the United States.

The first, the Articles of Confederation, which a number of "founding fathers" signed swearing that it "shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent," was not amended under the process laid out in the document but was instead just crumpled up and tossed aside for a new constitution in secret.

While the procedure for amending the Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent from all the states, Rhode Island and North Carolina were heavily opposed, with Rhode Island refusing to send delegates and repeatedly stating their opposition to a new constitution. For refusal to sign the new constitution, Rhode Island was embargoed and threatened with blockade until they capitulated.

Talk of the current US constitution being almost sacred and inviolable, how one is bound to follow the procedures laid out by guys who had just wiped their ass with the last constitution's procedures, is a lot like seeing an usurper who killed the previous king wax eloquent on the importance of fidelity to the crown and always following peaceful succession.

I personally find that even less inspiring but whatever floats your boat man.

  • -11

Aiming less to inspire and more to point out that the country's founding document is what makes it 'politically impossible' to take guns and that the 'baddies' are simply the ones demanding you adhere to the actual agreement instead of ignoring it where convenient.

If the country's basic political framing is demoralizing to your position, well again, the options to both change it via the well-established process or to leave to someplace more suitable are open!

If the country's basic political framing is demoralizing to your position, well again, the options to both change it via the well-established process or to leave to someplace more suitable are open!

Or to have it ignored. It's not a magical document, convince enough people in the right places it is illegitimate or out of date and you can avoid the process entirely.

If I founded a country and said the only way to change the founding rules is by me deciding it, it's quite possible in 300 hundred years the inhabitants of SSCReaderonia would entirely disregard my well-written constitution. And they would probably be right to do so. I just got first mover privilege, no reason that needs to last after I am dead.

The political framing is downstream of people believing it is the basic political framing. It's not like the Supreme Court has not been challenged to enforce its rulings before.

Not advocating this should be done by the way, just pointing out it isn't an either/or. There are many different options.

"Firearm ownership is literally written into the founding document of this country as a fundamental right . . . "

That's just a set-up for the Cersei Lannister response: "This is your shield, Lord Stark? A piece of paper? tears paper to shreds"

And that sounds like a set up for "No, this is my shield."

And at that point, gun rights are a revolution-complete problem.

There have been other amendments to the constitution. Why not make another to improve things?

I don't think the founders could foresee the future that well that they could predict events hundreds (or thousands) of years in the future and consider everything.

There have been other amendments to the constitution. Why not make another to improve things?

American prohibitionists actually managed to do just that. They built a sufficiently large anti-alcohol coalition that pushed their amendment through. Gun-prohibitionists can't muster enough support to repeat their achievement.

Honestly I think there'd be more chance of getting a "2A II -- ShallNotBeInfringedandweMeanItThisTime Boogaloo" amendment passed than anything the left could do for the forseeable future. Agitating for a constitutional convention on the matter might be a fun shit-stirring project if Desantis decides not to go for President this time around.

Constitutional convention is an existing far right boondoggle.

What's the holdup? A few states short of a load, or too nuclear?

A few states short because it’s nuclear.

There have been other amendments to the constitution. Why not make another to improve things?

Sure, the US is basically smashing every other large country on everything, when demographically adjusted. Why not constitutionally amend to eliminate social security and medicare? Or the income tax? Or mandate the execution of drug dealers? Evidence is much more in favor of those than the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

If you can get 32 States on board, go for it...

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