site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   29053 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.

Sure. But it might be what the constitution requires, if they authors are right on this. Keep in mind also that the constitution is "the supreme law of the land."

In practice the Constitution is what the Robed 9 say it is. Three of them were appointed by Trump, and three more aren't going to buy this one either. Not even John Roberts. That a person can be disqualified from the office of President because their political opponents can get one judge, with no trial, to say that person committed rebellion is not going to fly. Hey, I know -- instead of impeaching Joe Biden over Hunter, the Republicans can find a judge to declare the Iran deal to be giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, and bam he's out of office. Of course Democrats know Republicans are unwilling to try brazenly corrupt maneuvers like that, which is why the Democrats don't worry about the shoe is being on the other foot, but it's at least as supportable as any case against Trump.

Without a conviction, and one that’s specifically mentioned in the constitution as disqualification for office, they’d have a very strong case.

This is another basis for disqualification from office.

It is not. The Supreme Court has ruled in past cases that states may not add qualifications for the offices of President and Vice President. And the Constitution does not state that those convicted of crimes (state or Federal) may not stand for those offices.

Fair point about the first half, although I'm somewhat less confident on what the supreme court's takes would be—I think several, at least, like to consider themselves impartial, so won't do things merely out of a sense of personal loyalty.

As to the second, I don't see how that's the case? Isn't this clearly a case of the constitution disqualifying people? You can argue that it doesn't apply to the current case, or that it requires more than what the authors say, but you can't just say that the Constitution doesn't impose ineligibility for committing those acts after swearing an oath.

This would be a clear case of a person convicted of aiding an enemy or being involved in insurrection. Two problems being that: no legal ruling has declared 1/6 an insurrection, and Trump has not been tried or convicted of insurrection. Which are both clearly required. Our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence, meaning that the government must first prove a crime took place, and secondly that the accused actually did said crime. I cannot accuse someone of murder unless I can show pretty conclusively that the person I’m accusing you of killing is actually dead, and that the best explanation of the evidence is that you did it. Even then, I’d have to get a jury conviction. I can’t just blanket claim that the crime you committed requires 5 years in jail, that the law is “self-executed” and haul you away.

I don't see that they're clearly required. When determining eligibility, the government doesn't have to consider due process - it doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And due process is to do with rights. There's no right to run for president.

Assertion without evidence. Why isn’t there a right to run for president? Moreover, it seems like doing constitutionally protected “things” (eg advancing legal theories or speech) cannot count as something that is disqualifying.

Why isn’t there a right to run for president?

If there is one, it's a right that is routinely denied to those 34 and below. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be similarly denied to insurrectionists.

Moreover, it seems like doing constitutionally protected “things” (eg advancing legal theories or speech) cannot count as something that is disqualifying.

A relevant part of the paper (pages 93-94) addresses this point with historical evidence:

The House addressed the John Y. Brown case first. “This election case,” Hinds’ reports, was “the first of its kind since the formation of the Constitution, and recognized by the House as of the highest importance.”338 It also involved an incident of pure speech as disqualifying a member-elect from office: John Y. Brown had explicitly embraced and advocated violent resistance to the Union in Kentucky. Indeed, he had gone so far as to urge the shooting of any man who volunteered for service in Union forces. Brown’s disqualifying conduct consisted solely of such acts of speech.

In this particular case Brown was rejected by the House Committee on Elections, but not under section 3 (as it would not come into force until the following year). Nonetheless, it clearly shows that those who wrote and adopted the 14th amendment understood it to be possible and acceptable to disqualify a person from elected office purely on the basis of speech.

You do realize this is lunacy right?

There is a right to vote that is age restricted. The age restriction doesn’t mean there isn’t a right to vote.

Baude’s argument proves too much. If any political speech that can be even after the speech be tied to a riot aimed at the government means one is disqualified from office we can disqualify most democrats serving based on their comments re the BLM riots.

It would mean that any speech by a politician that is in the core province of the first amendment could easily cause that politician to be disqualified under the 14th. That would have such a chilling effect that it would effectively render the 1st amendment null and void.

And the response is “well this one guy vocally supported the CSA in the 19th century and was prevented from being seated in the House.” That isn’t a response because it is so different in kind as to be laughable.

But to ask you — should any democrat who gave speeches supporting the BLM protests (even seemingly the violent protests) be disqualified since BLM violently attacked the White House and other government buildings? What about those who voiced support for CHAZ or CHOP? What about those who encouraged the Resistance? What about those who called Trump illegitimate and to aggressively get in the face of people in his administration? What about Bernie Sanders whose supporter (presumably motivated by statements made by Sanders) opened fire on Republican congressmen?

One possible difference could be how central they are. They point out in the paper that some types of speech (e.g. incitement or conspiring—see p. 58) are not considered to be protected by the first amendment under the standard doctrine. If expressing support didn't rise to that level, I could see that not applying.

To be clear, if any BLM supporters do rise to that level, them also being disqualified would be good, if it turns out this legal theory is correct.

But that’s the thing — it is a pretty strong consensus that what Trump said was not incitement. So if you lower the standard for Trump don’t you need to lower it for democrats? As mentioned Kamala raised bail funds for the BLM folks.

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