site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28940 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A 126 page legal analysis of section 3 of amendment 14 of the constitution was released yesterday, arguing that Donald Trump, among others, is ineligible for public office, including the presidency. The authors are conservative, active in the Federalist society.

For reference, the relevant part of the constitution is

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Among the arguments made were that it is legally self-executing—that is, it applies, like the 35 year old minimum age, without an explicit system to handle it to be set up by congress. Further, they think that people at almost every step along the process, from state officials deciding who goes on the ballots, to those capable of bringing an Amendment 25 complaint have a duty to ensure that this provision is fulfilled.

In reference to Trump, they argued that the events on and surrounding January 6th intending to overturn the election would constitute "insurrection or rebellion" as understood at the time of the passing of the amendment.

I can't see this not being important, but I'm not sure how exactly it'll play out—we could get court cases, possibly going up to the supreme court (no idea how that would play out). We may see state officials refuse to put Trump on the ballot. I expect this to lead to a substantial increase in support for Trump if this is seen as illegitimate, as it undoubtedly will be. At the same time, if this happens during the primary elections, and Trump is not even on the ballot in some states, it might make it significantly easier for another candidate to become the Republican nominee, unless the national Republican party interferes with it.

Note on the link: the pdf isn't opening for me right now and the wayback machine isn't helping. It was fine earlier, not sure what the issue is.

It appears to be quite a lot of words to say not a bit of much. Let us imagine an alternative scenario:

Everything is the same, Trump does all the same things, gives the same speech, but instead of the FBI, DHS, and DOD failing to give the Capitol police up to date intelligence about the size of the protest, they give them that intelligence. Then, being given that, the Capitol police's request for reinforcement from the National guard is not denied by the House and Senate. Thus instead of its barricades being mostly unmanned and folding like a cheap suit, they perhaps stop the riot at the steps. Or, perhaps they just shut and lock the doors.

Who seriously thinks that in such a situation anyone would make a case for insurrection?

So, we see the truth: The whole thing is actually about incompetent security. Possibly intentionally incompetent.

I'm reminded of my favorite counter-factual: suppose that the BLM-adjacent riot at the White House that one night in summer (which resulted in dozens of injuries to the Secret Service) had succeeded in breaking down the doors. Would that have been an insurrection? I feel like the current battle lines would, for the most part, swap entirely.

I'm not sure what definition the authors are using for "insurrection" (once again, it would be great if we could read the actual damn paper), but I believe the modern one is "a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers". So just forcing your way into the White House doesn't count. If they did it with the aim of killing the President or otherwise installing someone else in his position though, it would.

If i recall, that was the night after protesters had shown up with a guillotine for their demonstration. So depending on how seriously you want to take that or other generic "Trump must go" rhetoric... note: I don't think tbey were serious, personally, but I also don't think either that or Jan 6 rose to the level of "insurrection ". But if people are going to use the symbolic gallows that the Jan 6 protestors had as evidence, it only seems fair to take into account the symbolic guillotine.

They have a (mostly) weaker definition for insurrection than rebellion. Now that the pdf works again, I can provide their tentative ones.

They give as their working definitions: "Insurrection is best understood as concerted forcible resistance to the authority of the government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect." "Rebellion implies an effort to overturn or replace lawful government authority by unlawful means."

Oh neat so the republicans can call the entire summer of love an insurrection and we can shoot everyone running for office.

Yep. Biden supported it. I guess Baude is claiming Biden cannot run for office?

Also how the fuck could he claim Trump did this? At no point did Trump ever lead any violent uprising. Pretty much everyone agrees what Trump did did not reach the level of incitement. Yet Baude thinks this…reached the non-incitement reached the level of insurrection? Crazy pills.

While Baude absolutely does claim that Trump meets the standard of "insurrection" as understood at the time of the passage of the 14th amendment, I'l note that even if you don't agree with him, disqualification may still apply under section 3 to those who took no active part in insurrection. It is enough if you merely give "aid or comfort" to an insurrection.

Which again proves too much. What aid or comfort did Trump give them? How was that different compared to the aid or comfort given the BLM rioters (Kamala raised legal funds for them). If Baude is right, there are many people in Congress right now who have no right to be there.

Of course, since we know this will only be used against Trump and his supporters (much like the Jack Smith legal theory) the right response is to say (correctly) this novel legal theory is bullshit and the people who propagate it (eg Baude) should never be taken seriously again.

More comments

The claim is any court can simply do as the DC Courts have been doing with the January 6 defendants and the New Mexico courts with the case mentioned earlier, and accept the media consensus that January 6 was indeed an insurrection led by Trump, and declare Trump is disqualified on those grounds. No substantive determination need be made because the provision is "self-executing". This may fly for New Mexico politicians no one likes and the QAnon shaman, but when it involves a major candidate for the US Presidency you're not going to be able to depend on friendly courts accepting this stuff, and all you'll get is an acerbic (and probably per curiam, which for the Supreme Court does not necessarily mean unanimous) rejection from the Supreme Court.

Perhaps. For some reason I doubt the media would buy a Trumpian argument that his own secret service's incompetence means we should jail Nancy Pelosi. I'll note that more police and secret service were injured on that day than were injured on J6 (both being far too trivial to be considered a serious coup attempt).

Was wondering where you got the numbers to show the white house attack injured more than the capitol riot. A quick google says 60+ at white house and 100+ at capitol.

Police injuries? The numbers I saw were like 4 and 10.

Yes. It is weird in that the WH attack was objectively more violent yet it isn’t often mentioned.

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