site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28374 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A motte for the term: The deep state

Without endorsing any particular theories here, perhaps the best way to think about the deep state is that it is simply parts of the government that have developed their own distinct political goals and capabilities, and are involved in the political process in ways that may or may not be visible, legal or proper. In some vague sense, a "deep state" may simply be a function of a government. Any government that remains stable for long enough will develop capabilities that do not require a given person at the top, since the leaders change over time. Those abilities will then be put to use in service of whatever political goals unite that part of government.

This becomes more open and more contentious in a democracy when parts of the government revolt against elected leaders.

The "deep state" is a motte-and-bailey where the motte is public choice theory and the bailey is that a cabal of civil servants controls the USG.

I'll happily defend what you think is the bailey as my motte. I used to subscribe to "structural" theories providing mundane explanation for dysfunctional behaviors of institutions, and dismiss "conspiracy" theories, but the last few years have utterly discredited the former, and I haven't actually heard a good argument to dismiss the latter.

I think nothing demonstrates this better than the case of Alexander Vindman. Let's assume his whistleblowing was not a premeditated impeachment trap for Trump as I don't think there was any evidence to that. His whistleblowing was based on that public servant's impression that the POTUS was undermining US Foreign Policy, which when you think about it with in mind who is supposed to set US Foreign Policy, is a really odd thing to say.

Ding ding ding.

If you think that the President is, e.g. the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, then literally any action he takes in that capacity when commanding a particular military action should, by definition, be obeyed without question, and refusal should be some form of treason or, bare minimum, dereliction of duty.

So when you have military personnel ignoring orders or claiming he's unfit to command, that's literally upending the actual chain of command as delineated in the basic structure of government.

A General making decisions that contradict those handed down from the Executive is evidence of exactly the sort of 'deep state' conspiracy that suggests that the President and Congress aren't actually the ones with the authority over the government.

Obviously the ur-example of this would be the military couping the President on flimsy grounds, but that's never really been the claim. The claim is that a coup is unneeded because the power isn't actually there in the first place, there's no need to take out the President when you can just ignore him.

If you think that the President is, e.g. the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, then literally any action he takes in that capacity when commanding a particular military action should, by definition, be obeyed without question, and refusal should be some form of treason or, bare minimum, dereliction of duty.

This is completely wrong.

"Disobeying the President is treason" implies that the President is the United States. This is the very reason why many believe that Trump (and certain would-be Imperial Presidents before him) broke American norms, because the loyalty is supposed to be to the office of the President, not the man.

Of course military officers (and federal civilians, though the rules aren't quite the same for them - the worst you can do to them for insubordination is fire them) are obligated to obey lawful orders. Key word: lawful. You seem to also be claiming that a Presidential order is by definition lawful, when in fact anyone would be obligated to disobey an unlawful order.

Now of course there's the sticky problem of a subordinate claiming an order from the President was unlawful when the President doesn't think it was. That might only be decidable by the Supreme Court. You'd better be pretty damn sure you want to die on that hill if you disobey a direct order. But a President can't just order his generals to invade anyone or launch missiles anywhere he likes and expect those orders to be obeyed without question.

You know, I used deliberate phrasing to make my point:

and refusal should be some form of treason or, bare minimum, dereliction of duty.

and

the ur-example of this would be the military couping the President on flimsy grounds,

Almost like there's a spectrum for the varying levels of disobedience/insubordination.

"Disobeying the President is treason" implies that the President is the United States. This is the very reason why many believe that Trump (and certain would-be Imperial Presidents before him) broke American norms, because the loyalty is supposed to be to the office of the President, not the man.

Yes, if the President ordered generals to launch a nuke against the U.S. civilian population without some obvious need for it to defend the nation, then you're probably right.

But I assume you'd agree that if the President ordered a General to, e.g. withdraw troops from a foreign country with all haste (i.e. Afghanistan) and that General, rather than obey, decided to send troops to surround the White House in order to prevent any further action...

THAT'D BE A LITTLE TREASONOUS, no?

Just as an example of a clearly lawful order and a clearly unjustifiable resistance.

Now of course there's the sticky problem of a subordinate claiming an order from the President was unlawful when the President doesn't think it was. That might only be decidable by the Supreme Court

Sure. But the military chain of command isn't going to wait on a Supreme Court ruling to take some action.

Add on the fact that the Executive tends to have full authority remove officers and appointed officials at will, and what will likely happen is he can simply fire the ones who are causing him trouble until he finds ones that will meet his standards.

But a President can't just order his generals to invade anyone or launch missiles anywhere he likes and expect those orders to be obeyed without question.

Yes but there's a whole massive world of theoretical orders that are supposed to be followed, and there is nobody higher in the chain of command to run them by. So refusal to follow the order will have to, in this case, be based on something outside of the 'authority' of the authority vested in the office.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-ii/clauses/345#commander-in-chief-clause-ramsey-and-vladeck

In sum, the Commander in Chief Clause gives the President the exclusive power to command the military in operations approved by Congress; it probably gives the President substantial independent power to direct military operations so long has the President does not infringe exclusive powers of Congress or other provisions of the Constitution; and it may (but may not) limit Congress’ power to pass statutes directing or prohibiting particular military activities.

You know, I used deliberate phrasing to make my point:

Yes, but treason isn't even on the spectrum.

But I assume you'd agree that if the President ordered a General to, e.g. withdraw troops from a foreign country with all haste (i.e. Afghanistan) and that General, rather than obey, decided to send troops to surround the White House in order to prevent any further action...

Yes, that would be treason, but disobeying or slow-rolling an order would be the smallest part of that.

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