site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25069 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 16, 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.

Extreme minimization of the symbolic importance of a mob invading the seat of government. According to this perspective, the march on rome was just a health-conscious bald man taking a stroll with friends. Any state in such a situation is justified in using lethal force, and lots of it, way earlier than the US actually did here. It's a threat to democracy in a way burning the whole city of minneapolis to the ground isn't.

  • -14

According to this perspective, the march on rome was just a health-conscious bald man taking a stroll with friends.

Ah, sorry was there a military general leading armed troops into the capital? I must have missed that news story.

Protests that get talked about tend to either be symbolically important, or violent. There is often a claim that the January 6th riots were violent. I'd say by all standards established in 2020 the January 6th protest was peaceful. Was it symbolically important, yes, obviously.

Any state in such a situation is justified in using lethal force, and lots of it, way earlier than the US actually did here. It's a threat to democracy in a way burning the whole city of minneapolis to the ground isn't.

It wasn't a threat to democracy. It was a threat to the illusion and symbology of our democracy. There is a big difference. A threat to democracy would be something like withholding news of a major medical intervention until the day after the election. Or lying about evidence that suggests one of the candidates has a corrupt family member taking bribes from foreign governments. Or changing the rules of how the elections are carried out and risking massive security breaches in an untested process. Or working with all major social media platforms to censor your political opponents. Those things all hamper a people's ability to govern themselves. You cannot effectively govern if you are lied to, can't talk with one another, and can't trust the means of giving your voice to the government.

January 6th burned the symbol, but the deep state and media were busy trashing the thing it was supposed to symbolize for the last 4 years. We woke up afterwards, looked around and realized the power of the symbol was gone, and you blame the people that burnt it, not the ones that spent all their time undermining it.

Also the Roman Senate deserved what they had coming to them, they deserved much worse than Julius Caesar. It was a morally bankrupt empire that filled its coffers by looting foreign countries. They deserved to be ruled by force, because that is the way they sought to rule the rest of the world. So sad that one of their best looters realized he didn't need to ride all the way out to the frontier to do some good looting. Read the story of Carthage's fall and I dare you to tell me you don't hope there is a special place in hell for those people.

Ah, sorry was there a military general leading armed troops into the capital? I must have missed that news story.

Mussolini, not Caesar, reference, but they were both bald, so understandable.

It wasn't a threat to democracy. It was a threat to the illusion and symbology of our democracy.

Same thing. Power resides where men believe it resides. You're telling me about BLM and the democrats did this and that, and I sympathize, but really, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Anyone attempting to take the symbol of power by force should die for it, doesn't matter who it is. It's sacro-sanct, like a vestal virgin or a tribune of the plebs. We have elections and stuff to decide who gets to hold the magic scepter.

Mussolini, not Caesar, reference, but they were both bald, so understandable.

Also, Rome.

Also, this guy was one of two generals that organized the "militants" for the march.

I mean, the italian army could have swatted mussolini's rabble like flies if vic emmanuel hadn't been such a wet noodle. Caesar's XIII's legion, and later the rest, could not be swatted, it turned out.

the italian army could have swatted mussolini's rabble like flies

You mean they could have kicked off a civil war against the political faction favored by the military, police, and people that wanted to keep the factories running. That probably would have had a predictable outcome. Smart man to skip the bloodshed and get to the end result.

Vickem the third was a useless retard, I'll die on that hill. You're the friggin' king- right there, it's a good chunk conservatives in your pocket, including the military. Plus all of the left and center. No one understood his decision.

Edit: Here's what wiki has to say:

General Pietro Badoglio told the King that the military would be able without difficulty to rout the rebels, who numbered no more than 10,000 men armed mostly with knives and clubs whereas the Regio Esercito had 30,000 soldiers in the Rome area armed with heavy weapons, armoured cars, and machine guns.[7] During the "March on Rome", the Fascist squadristi were halted by 400 lightly armed policemen, as the squadristi had no desire to take on the Italian state.[8]

The troops were loyal to the King; even Cesare Maria De Vecchi, commander of the Blackshirts, and one of the organisers of the March on Rome, told Mussolini that he would not act against the wishes of the monarch. De Vecchi went to the Quirinal Palace to meet the king and assured him that the Fascists would never fight against the king.[9] It was at this point that the Fascist leader considered leaving Italy altogether. But then, minutes before midnight, he received a telegram from the King inviting him to Rome. Facta had the decree for martial law prepared after the cabinet had unanimously endorsed it, and was very surprised when he learned about 9 am on 28 October that the king had refused to sign it.[6] When Facta protested that the king was overruling the entire cabinet, he was told that this was the royal prerogative and the king did not wish to use force against the Fascists.

Power resides where men believe it resides.

Even by that standard Jan 6th was harmless. Do you or anyone else believe that delaying that event changed who is president, or who won the election?

You're telling me about BLM and the democrats did this and that, and I sympathize, but really, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I made the comparison in another post but I'll bring it up here. Man buys his girl $5000 engagement ring and proposes. A few months later she catches him cheating and throws out the ring in anger.

Man: "You are crazy why did you throw out the $5000 ring?"

Woman: "You cheated on me you asshole!"

Man: "I get that you feel bad and all, but what does that have to do with the ring? Can we please focus on the issue at hand."

Don't ruin the thing that is being symbolized and then complain that someone has trashed the now meaningless symbol. All of the complaints about ruining something sacred sound hollow.

Do you or anyone else believe that delaying that event changed who is president, or who won the election?

No, it did nothing. But it may have emboldened the next mob, the next coup , and that is reason enough to crush it.

Seems like you’re implying I ruined things, but I’m not blue tribe, american, or progressive. And you owe me one ring. Sex is sex, but money is cash.

I don’t get your point. It’s over, democracy means nothing anymore, is that it? Boogaloo Day? Can’t tell the difference between the worst civil war and your day-to-day life? Wouldn't have pegged you as a blackpill overdose patient.

No, it did nothing. But it may have emboldened the next mob, the next coup , and that is reason enough to crush it.

Or it did exactly what it needed to do, which was make everyone aware that the symbol is dead and meaningless. The next mob will be approved or denied depending on the flag they wave, just as it was in all of 2020. There was no coup on January 6th, that is a ridiculous idea. The deep state need not commit a coup, it was already in charge and continued to be in charge.

Seems like you’re implying I ruined things, but I’m not blue tribe, american, or progressive. And you owe me one ring. Sex is sex, but money is cash.

You are admittedly a stand in for people that aren't here right now. The people I blame would never be on themotte, but I have to hear them talk all the same. All public lobbies decided at some point that news channels are the only thing that can ever be displayed, and since then my ability to ignore the clowns in Washington has decreased.

I don’t get your point. It’s over, democracy means nothing anymore, is that it? Boogaloo Day? Can’t tell the difference between the worst civil war and your day-to-day life? Wouldn't have pegged you as a blackpill overdose patient.

I don't think democracy and our government are a very important aspect of America. I see those things as downstream of culture and the market, and those are still pretty good and healthy in most places in America. It would be a shame to ruin the culture/market by starting a civil war.

Having a broken system of government is going to mean that cultural and market problems pile up for longer and our less likely to get solved. The fact that I usually don't have to worry about or deal with government was a feature, not a bug.

Same thing. Power resides where men believe it resides

Ah, but then the true attack on democracy was the media telling people it was an attack on democracy!

a mob invading the seat of government

This happens routinely. Hell, it happened yesterday. For some reason it doesn’t seem important to the powers that be.

I’m just telling you what a self-respecting sovereign would do in his house. Put one of those ‘we don’t call 911’ signs at the entrance, and machine-gun anyone who enters without knocking.

That's honestly what I'd always assumed would happen if someone tried to jump the fence at the White House until this weird incident:

The man, 42-year-old Omar J. Gonzalez, ran unobstructed for 70 yards across the front lawn of the White House before entering through the North Portico. On the way, he brushed by a Secret Service officer with a drawn gun, sources tell CBS News' Bill Plante.

Gonzalez then proceeded to run through the entrance hall to the cross hall of the White House, past the staircase that leads up to the first family's residence. He was confronted by a female Secret Service agent, who he overpowered, and made it all the way to the East Room, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CBS News, citing whistleblowers. Gonzalez was brought down by a door leading to the Green Room, a parlor adjacent to the East Room, which is used for formal events including bill signings, press conferences, receptions and ceremonies.

In retrospect, my perspective seems childish, but I legitimately thought that leaping the fence and running towards the White House would get you sniped, or attacked by guard dogs, or... well, at least something.

I don’t think it’s childish, it’s necessary. Current responses are too soft, dare I say, decadent. It is not unthinkable, and it has happened in history, that one day a mob will just waltz in there, slap the president around a little, declare they’re in charge now, and everyone will go: ‘What are we supposed to do, spill blood? We are civilized, let’s just do what they say and hope for the best“.

It comes down to the same disconnect I talked about last time, that somehow public life does not matter, only your private red lines. This is a gigantic collective red line, representing an almost unfathomable amount of lethal force directed at everybody. If it is not defended, nothing ever should be.

Oh, I mean I was being childish in thinking that the United States would have a competent response.

The government isn’t a place, it’s a bunch of people. Occupied Capitol and White House? Send in the National Guard and some highly militarized Capitol Police, clear them out; or just let them have the buildings and reconvene elsewhere. America doesn’t have a magic throne or a Darksaber, the Q Shaman sitting in the Speaker’s seat doesn’t make him Speaker, and the Army won’t obey a mob.

It would take an assault strategically equivalent to that shown in Olympus Has Fallen to move the needle on government compliance with a mob.

or just let them have the buildings and reconvene elsewhere.

I can't tell if you guys are blinded by partisan bias or if you actually believe this. Might as well hand them your ‘monopoly on force’ card right there. What if they start putting people in ‘prison’ like the bolsheviks 1917? Just negotiate for their release by granting the rebels taxing rights over fisheries in northern maine?

And this from people who are vociferous supporters of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in any other context.

Might as well hand them your ‘monopoly on force’ card right there.

By your argument, the government already lost its monopoly of force card in 2020, so there's nothing left to discuss regarding Jan 6th. You think the riot has to be responded to or further riots are emboldened. Well, they didn't respond and further riots have, in fact, been emboldened; having tolerated and even endorsed well over a hundred riots within the last few years, there is no reasonable argument remaining why this one riot, far less violent than many and perhaps even most of the previous examples, is finally the point where the line must be drawn.

The actual problem is that it isn't actually possible for you to credibly advocate cracking down on riots in the abstract, because everyone watched massive, nation-wide riots not get cracked down on for more than a year, and then this one day of mild scuffling got treated like a national disaster. Your options are between no enforcement, or enforcement on only one side. If you choose the latter, the people on that side will recognize that your appeals to law and order only apply when it's to their disadvantage, and they will be increasingly inclined to decline their consent to our social system generally. This outcome is significantly worse than establishing a norm that low-level violence will be tolerated impartially, but people apparently believe that the integrity of the social system itself is essentially impervious. By the time it's obvious that they're wrong, it will be much, much too late to change course.

The actual problem is that it isn't actually possible for you to credibly advocate cracking down on riots in the abstract

Oh no? The other riots should be crushed too; it’s nonsense to let it happen because they have ‘legitimate grievances’. Preferably by military-police, but backing rittenhouse style ‘vigilantism’ also works. But if you have only one unit available, definitely send it to the seat of government power first, even if those rioters are less violent, cause less property damage (which definitely is the case here). The challenge to state authority is of a much more grievous nature. Far more emboldening for any other group.

Do you not see the distinction between the riots? In minneapolis, a rioter says: ‘I am angry, I want to destroy, I’d like free stuff’. In washington, ‘Let me rule over you’. It's an attack on your power, a threat to your rights, not just criminality.

More comments

In retrospect, my perspective seems childish, but I legitimately thought that leaping the fence and running towards the White House would get you sniped, or attacked by guard dogs, or... well, at least something.

Well Biden's got the attack dogs covered now I guess -- the Secret Service will need to pry them off of themselves first 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