site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   30475 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Im on my way to a barbecue right now so dont have time to add much in the way of commentary but a federal has just hand down an injunction barring the white house from working with social media organizations to censor specific content. A rulling that the Washington Post describes as dangerous and violating long standing norms. Happy Fourth of July all ;-)

The comments on that article are truly mind-numbing partisanship.

I guess those kinds of people will have to work doubly hard to fortify the next election.

Ah yes:

Our nation has always recognized limits on free speech. Furthermore our nation has long recognized the legal concept of product liability. Oh and let us not forget that fraud consists of telling lies to gain an advantage or benefit. Censoring lies is fully in keeping with the spirit and the letter of our free speech rights.

And much more of the same. And lots of quoting Schenck v. US, which hasn't been good law since 1969. Full-throated defense of government censorship of social media, along with a bunch of vitriol towards Republicans for daring to oppose it.

I always assume that anyone unironically quoting Schenck agrees with its conclusion that distributing anti-draft pamphlets is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Which seems like a downright fascist perspective, but what do I know?

I have yet to encounter a person who seriously quotes the "fire in the crowded theater" thing and also can answer what was the actual case about. Because if you know that, you'd likely to shy away a bit from quoting from that case, where the court basically decided anti-government speech is a crime. That's usually not what many people want to sign under (give it time, I guess?)

Inside of Facebook we had a group for free speech advocates. Zuck, defending the company's censorship, had no idea about the origins of "fire in a crowded theater" and so used it as part of his defense. It took employees to point out that that example comes from a controversial and overruled SCOTUS decision.

Most of them probably have no idea about the case beyond "fire in a crowded theater" and "clear and present danger". But someone did mention the case by name, and as far as I can tell given the limitations of the Post's execrable (technically) comment section, nobody pointed out it's no longer good law since Brandenburg v. Ohio.

And I'm sure they'd agree that distributing anti-draft pamphlets about the Vietnam War or the Gulf Wars (yeah, I know, there wasn't a draft) would be fine but it's absolute treason and not protected to do so about WWII or the Ukranian War (again, I know there isn't a draft in the US).

nobody pointed out it's no longer good law since Brandenburg v. Ohio.

I mean, with the current Supreme Court, who’s to say Brandenburg v. Ohio isn’t next on the chopping block? Brandenburg is just one of a laundry list of cases from that time period which changed longstanding precedent. Those cases are being rolled back one by one as we speak.

The most prominent rollback of precedent was overturning a case which several justices were put on the Supreme Court specifically to overturn. The other semi-prominent overturning of precedent, NY rifle and pistol, is much more arguable as an example of overturning precedent.

Aside from Roe, can you name another? I believe there are two members of the Supreme Court (Thomas and Barrett) who might seriously consider overturning Brandenburg, but that's it.

Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education overturned by Janus v. AFSCME.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Not necessarily from the same era, but NYSRPA v. Bruen basically overturned every 2nd amendment case in history besides Heller

Lemon v. Kurtzman overturned by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Wikipedia claims that; the opinion of the court claims Lemon had already been effectively set aside.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

SFFA overturned neither Bakke (which was a mess of a set of opinions, and in fact the ruling was in favor of Bakke) nor even the later Grutter which endorsed Powell's opinion in Bakke. The ruling was that Harvard and UNCs programs were impermissible under Grutter.

Not necessarily from the same era, but NYSRPA v. Bruen basically overturned every 2nd amendment case in history besides Heller

I only wish it overturned US v. Miller.

More comments

You just had 6 SCOTUS justices put forth a very strong view of first amendment protections (including ACB and Thomas). I don’t know if they specifically cite Brandenburg but what makes anyone think they want to revisit first amendment caselaw? If anything, they seem keen to extend it.

Now if they actually were to reinstate Lochner my joy would be complete.

It's pretty obvious that Brandenburg isn't on the chopping block, and it doesn't make sense to imply that it is just because "the Court is changing precedent", when most of the precedents that are being changed are of the opposite political valence as Brandenburg, and often of the opposite legal conclusions given that this Court is clearly committed to an expansive view of speech rights.

Frankly everyone whines about the sanctity of precedent when, and only when, it suits them to do so, so I'm never swayed by appeals to stare decisis. The precedents overturned in Lawrence and Obergefell were a hell of a lot older than the ones overturned in Dobbs and SFFA.

And in SFFA, it’s hard to say there was a large overturning of prior case law. Bakke was a mess; Grutter was very uncomfortable with the idea and clearly positioned the holding as currently permissible but not permissible in perpetuity. It was if anything a natural outgrowth of Grutter taking into account reality post Grutter.

The idea is that a left-wing court has carte blanche to overturn precedent because that is their philosophy. A subsequent right-wing court is then bound to that precedent because that is THEIR philosophy. Works until Thomas gets cranky, I guess.

To respectfully break the rules on recruiting for a cause: anyone want to join me in distributing pamphlets advocating for disbanding the Selective Service in Washington some time soon? We can call it a performance art piece.

(sarcasm, if unclear, but only mostly)

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