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.

There are fingerprints all over the trials against the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers where the judges in those cases acted to protect multiple fed informants and agents who were on the ground that day. It got to the point that "judge" Kelly in the Proud Boys trial forced defense counsel to pre-clear questions with the prosecution in order to protect all the federal involvement in their group and on the ground that day. The highlights of that trial really are a marvel ( included an FBI agent admitting she deleted evidence with Kelly immediately sending the jury out) and should make a serious dent in any person's belief that these trials are little more than show trials, let alone remotely fair or objective.

The FBI, DOJ, Capitol Hill Police leadership have all admitted to there being significant government connected people, i.e., "feds" on the ground and in these groups.

But when they do it, it isn't a massive secret after the fact.

the full scale of the Michigan operation was a secret and was only revealed because one of the FBI agents involved beat the crap out of his wife and was pulled over by police which lead to a whole lot of work by very clever defense attorneys which kept peeling back layers and finding more feds

this isn't an easy thing to do; there were no "whistleblowers" despite you claiming there should be involved people saying "wtf" and saving conversations, there were actually people who were telling their informants and other agents to delete evidence (thankfully, they were incompetent)

in DC, the "judges" got around this issue by simply blocking evidence requests or making excuses for the fed prosecutors failing to turn over evidence to defense attorneys despite repeatedly requests as well as excusing conveniently missing evidence, text messages, chats, etc.

and not only did no careers get ended but the head of the field office was promoted to DC, worked there during the Jan6 debacle, and recently left to work at one of the big 4 accounting firms as scrutiny escalated

your portrayal of the Michigan case is simply wrong and evidences a real lack of knowledge in how these things are discovered and unwound; it should serve as an example against your biases, but you somehow think it reinforces them

But none of that means the FBI exercised any control over the crowd at the time. And that's what actually matters with respect to the conspiracy theories around Epps.

this is the new goalpost? okay, okay, maybe Epps was in fact a fed (the entire topic of this string of discussion), but unless I have direct evidence Ray Epps "controlled the crowd" (whatever that means), then it doesn't actually matter?

no thanks, I think I'll stop here before I get whiplash from the next galloping goalpost

edit: /u/huadpe blocked me for this exchange

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