site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   29665 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

I don't think there is enough evidence, aside from Biden being way too lenient with Hunter. And the Democrats are not going to want even the notion of corruption associated with the party, as it would be if they dumped Biden or even co-operated with this effort. Their only bet is to keep denying and keep fighting.

Besides, remember Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and the big name feminists who made jokes about giving Bill a blow-job in return for what he and the Democratic Party did/would do for 'women's rights' in power. There's a lot of rotten behaviour both parties will tolerate in Their Guy if he's in power and seems the best chance for them to hang on to that power.

What is the evidence that isn’t compelling to you?

Is it the fact that multiple people have stated Biden was to get money doesn’t seem fishy? Was it Biden using aliases to set up calls with Burisma while CCing Hunter not being blatant enough? Was it that the state department believed in the AG that Biden fired in contradiction to state department policy being just an internal disagreement? Was it the massive string of corporate shells set up that triggered 72 money laundering alarm bells being just a way for Hunter to avoid taxes? Was it the statement by an FBI informant that is consistent with those shell corporations being just a statement from an informant? It must just be normal in the Biden family for all members to get paid for nothing from Hunter’s activities. Do we just accept that Biden met with people at Cafe Millano to just discuss the weather? Is it that to date no one has been able to prove any alleged facts are incorrect but maybe at some point someone will?

I’ve left out other evidence. There is a pattern and practice here.

If they have solid evidence, then the impeachment may well go ahead.

The problem then is, will they impeach? All this allegedly happened when Joe was VP in the last but one administration. Can a sitting president be impeached and removed for what he might have done in a different role?

This is genuinely legally interesting to me, if anyone has any news, views or informed opinion (or even uninformed speculation!)

The Constitution says one may be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, it does not limit them to the time period one is in office to be impeached from.

I've been told repeatedly that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and the Presidents can be impeached for anything and everything that Congress considers a problem -- is this only true if the president's initials are D.J.T., or what?

I mean Clinton got indicted for getting a blowjob.

So you're saying that the middle initial has to be J?

Dershowitz takes the view no. I disagree. If it was impeachable while he was VP and he was impeached at such time, he would be ineligible to become president. Since there is no apparent SOL, it seems to me that one cannot escape being impeached for a crime while one was an officer of the United States even if not currently that office.

There was a lot of discussion when Trump was being impeached the second time.

If it was impeachable while he was VP and he was impeached at such time, he would be ineligible to become president.

Not necessarily. Impeachment trials do have the option to remove the official without disqualifying him/her from future office, and this happens fairly often.

Also, impeaching a VP has never been done and would be somewhat Constitutionally weird, since the judge at an impeachment trial is normally the VP and the only exception is if the impeached official is the POTUS. So the VP would be judge at his own trial.

Certainly impeaching/removing/disqualifying Biden while he was VP would have prevented him from becoming POTUS, though.

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