site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   38844 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

[removed, overly emotional]

I think Trump has a point, that arguing the specifics seems irrelevant to me, when the larger issue is unfair treatment. Unfortunately, it's probably impossible to persuade anyone of this to people who consider Trump to be a singular threat.

God, I am so fucking tired of this argument. This isn't a sports game, you don't get a free throw because the other guy fouled you. Yeah, Clinton should be behind bars but the fact that she's walking free doesn't make Trump immune to prosecution. The fact that otherwise intelligent people are acting like it should is baffling to me.

If the referees only ever target one side and the game is rigged, the crimes don't exist, they're just pretexts. You can argue for prosecuting both sides, the government will take your approval, say, "thank you for legitimizing what I was doing anyways," and then keep not presecuting their own guys. They'll make up process crimes to lawfare whoever they want, and you've already argued yourself into accepting their frame.

It isn’t just Clinton. It is that the deep state was against Trump and opened baseless investigations into him time and time again. That isn’t justice; not in the western style at least.

This is basic game theory. In any iterated model, fairness matters, whether it's sports, trade negotiations, or political hardball.

One of the most relevant parts of that game theory, though, is how to re-establish trust and fairness given a history of defection. Given a historically bipartisan-ly corrupt system, how do you begin enforcing the rules without appearing to play favorites?

Honestly it's a hard problem of soft skills: if there were an easy answer, any number of longstanding grudges (Israel/Palestine, etc) could be settled. There are a few successful examples: Northern Ireland seems pretty peaceful these days.

For the record, I'd much prefer a non-corrupt system, but I think a partisanly corrupt system is probably even worse.

Given a historically bipartisan-ly corrupt system, how do you begin enforcing the rules without appearing to play favorites?

Easy - you do so in a way that disadvantages yourself voluntarily. If your counterparty continues to defect anyway, you take an L, but that's really the only way to break the cycle. I actually thought the Trump administration coming to power and then legally completely laying off both Hillary and everyone else in the previous administration was a significant de-escalation, given this represented a substantial political climbdown from the election. For better or worse, it wasn't reciprocated.

This isn't a sports game, you don't get a free throw because the other guy fouled you.

Consider, why is there an expectation in sports that if my opponents gets free throws for a foul that I should get the same call on the other end? Why does the discrepancy in the whistle between ends cause much more anger than a blown call isolation? It seems to me that this is not a product of something idiosyncratic to sports, but that the sports rules and expectations derive from a generalized human dislike for such blatant unfairness. I might dislike that James Harden engages in endless foul-baiting nonsense, but I can deal with it if I'm getting the same whistle when I use that stupid rip-through to draw a foul. If the call only goes one way, it becomes obvious that the system is rigged.

So argue your point. Why should the rules be different for different politicians?

Oh for fuck's sake. I'm not saying the rule should be different. I am fully fucking aware Clinton broke the law and I'm not okay with her getting away with it either. Just because one thief walked does mean we should just let all thieves walk.

Edited for clarity and charity.

If you ask two people to change their behavior but you know in advance that one of them won't, that is equivalent to asking only one of them to change. If you think Clinton getting away with it was a one-off fluke, say that. If you think that it wasn't but now we're going to start getting prosecutions of prominent members in the current administration, say that. If you think the investigation into the server should be re-opened after 7 years have passed, say that. Otherwise, you're asking for rules which are going to be applied only to some politicians, which is equivalent to rules which are different for different politicians.

If you think the investigation into the server should be re-opened after 7 years have passed, say that.

Sure. Re-open the investigation into Clinton. Go after Pence and Biden while you're at it.

That enough throat-clearing for everyone?

No, it's not enough, because you and I both know that these cases will never be reopened so it costs you absolutely nothing to take that stance. Very principled and also very convenient.

As someone above posted, the only way to deescalate this sort of partisan spiral is for your side to willingly take an L. If the Dems showed that they had Trump dead to rights but then loudly proclaimed that they refused to stoop to politically motivated prosecution, I would be impressed. Or, if they prosecuted Trump and then also began looking into Hunter Biden, I would be impressed. But until then, if it looks/walks/smells like political partisanship then it probably is, and all the self-righteous throat clearing in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind.

So my denouncement of Clinton is just further evidence of my anti-Trump partisanship? Yeah, I know a Kafka trap when I see it. Run along.

More comments

"My rules enforced > your rules enforced fairly > your rules enforced unfairly"

So what is to be done?

I don't believe the system is fair. Therefore, I don't believe the system should be respected, maintained, or cooperated with. Allowing Trump to break the law does not make the system worse, because selective rules enforcement is not better than no rules enforcement. If one thief walks, that doesn't mean all thieves should walk, but if you conclude that thieves walk or not based on their relationship to the cops, that can in fact be a deal-breaker.

In any case, I've said since the election in 2015 that I'm entirely happy to see Trump go to jail. Establishing the exact contours of the regime is a useful exercise! That doesn't mean there's the slightest reason to cooperate with the efforts to put him there, though; If they want to get rid of him, make them work for it, publicly and on the record. Make them commit.

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