site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   28809 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 18, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ray Epps is a loudmouth idiot who said a bunch of hyped up shit when he wasn't actually near a moment of violence, got through initial barricades intending to get into the Capitol, then when faced with the reality of a showdown with the police he lost his nerve or realized how insane his bluster was and started trying to get out of the situation without getting his ass kicked by a line of police in riot gear.

Thing is, this also describes pretty well everyone else involved -- with the exception of those who didn't even show up on the property for probably similar reasons. And it hasn't stopped any of them from being handed multi-decadal sentences.

As far as I am aware, the only decade+ prison sentences for Jan 6 have been for leaders of pre-existing militia organizations which put members into the Capitol complex on Jan 6 with pretty specific pre-event planning

so like a former leader of the Arizona Oath Keepers who did have people on Capitol grounds with evidence of preplanning?

one who is on video for days before the event telling people to go IN to the Capitol because that's where "our" problem is?

one whose reaction to being called a fed is to go to a slightly different area and continue his sermon about how necessary it was for people to go IN TO the Capitol? one who did this at least multiple times with multiple different crowds in the Jan 5 impromptu demonstration?

one who prefaces his sermons with "I probably shouldn't say this because I'll probably be arrested"?

Plus one guy who assaulted a bunch of different officers with multiple weapons and bear spray.

So like a a guy holding a red Trump flagpole which is later seen to be poking capitol cops? the exact sort of behavior which is described by the media and the DC US atty office as "assault" with "a weapon"?

Every time in these comments you've attempted to differentiate the other Jan6 victims defendants, you reveal just how different Epps's treatment has been for reasons we are left to speculate about.

Did you not know all these things about Epps? If not, don't you wonder why whatever sources you're using to form your opinions didn't bother to mention them? What other stuff are they leaving out of your coverage of Jan6 or the persecution of the poor saps caught in the web? If so, why didn't you mention this in any of your comments? Whenever anyone brings up these rather startling facts supported by quite a bit of publicly available, on video, evidence supporting felony indictments and treatment similar to many others, they don't affect your opinion at all and you just roll on with the same opinion. What are we to make of that?

Let's just say 'much longer than Epps' then, rather than nitpicking the details. More or less everyone who gained access to the Capitol found themselves a dog who's caught the car, and just sort of milled around prior to leaving peacefully. Some of these people have been convicted and sentenced quite harshly -- and of course for the Proud-Boys et al who weren't even on site, whatever planning they had engaged came to fuck all in practice -- Epps is on video doing something like 'planning', so it seems like similar legal theories could apply to him if the charging authorities so desired.

Whether he is in fact a Fed or just 'not specifically a member of a group that the Feds would like to target', the inconsistent judicial behaviour is very banana republicy IMO.

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