site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27770 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Coming to the end of our third week without a Speaker in the United States House of Representatives.

We started the day with something like nine Republican candidates in the running. Eventually this was narrowed down to one by internal Conference voting. Then a sufficient number of Reps said they would refuse to vote for the winner on the floor anyway so now we're back to... internal Conference voting! I seriously do not understand the point of these votes. If Reps won't honor the result in sufficient numbers such that the winner can't actually be elected what purpose is the internal vote serving? I thought it was a meme when I someone on Twitter say (paraphrasing): "There are only two results some GOP Reps accept: We win and try again." Apparently their may be some kind of discussion about a joint Speakership between McCarthy and Jordan? I'm pretty sure Speaker of the House is a constitutional position, it has to be one of them. Would each candidates opponents really trust whoever was actually the Speaker? I can feel Hakeem Jeffries odds rising in real time.

We're about 3 weeks out from the end of the current CR on 11/17. There's some dark comedy in Kevin McCarthy losing his Speakership to avoid a government shutdown and then we have a government shutdown anyway. At least it'll be after Virginia elections so maybe Republicans can do well there!

Congress hasn't done anything in decades, there's no reason any of us should care about this sideshow.

This is just very obviously false? They fund the executive branch every year. There have been a bunch of changes in tax rates. The Affordable Care Act. Congress has passed tons of substantive legislation these last "decades."

I think it's an interesting question, though.

What if the House had literally passed zero legislation except for budget continuances since 1990. Would it matter? Would things be better or worse? I'd argue things wouldn't be much different and probably slightly better.

Since old laws are almost never removed from the books, the only way to prevent the entire system gumming to a halt under its own weight is to prevent the passage of new laws. Gridlock is good.

Congress has passed tons of substantive legislation these last "decades."

What legislation has Congress passed in these last decades that secured positive outcomes from a Red Tribe perspective? Like, a Red Tribe law got passed, and straightforwardly achieved the goal it was written to achieve?

Can you clarify what a "Red Tribe perspective" is? I think the Bush and Trump tax cuts qualify straightforwardly. Or the cap on SALT deductions. Probably I could think of others.

All three seem like reasonable instances, sure.

What do you think of the argument in this thread that the Bush and Trump tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible? Likewise, I recall the cap on SALT deductions as being perceived as a partisan attack on Blue Tribe.

To speak plainly, the argument you're making is that Red Tribe would be better served working within the system. I'm asking for evidence that working within the system has a history of delivering significant value. Do you think the Bush and Trump tax cuts should be considered, by red tribers, to have delivered sufficient value that the last forty years of political effort was worth it? If not, what else might be added to make the difference? From forty years of effort, funding, activism, elections won, what of the Red Tribe agenda has been achieved?

Meanwhile, laws like this were passed to safeguard what I perceive to be a fundamental human right, and have been completely nullified through actions taken outside the legible system. Ditto for immigration; we won through the democratic process, enacted our preferences into law through the legitimate process, and accomplished precisely nothing because our opponents were willing to simply ignore or break as many rules as necessary to achieve their desired outcome. Ditto for police "reform". Ditto for education policy, and so on.

I guess I'm wondering what the alternative to working within the system is. What's the solution to immigration that doesn't rely on controlling the apparatus of the federal government? What's the solution to state's recalcitrance in respecting the right to bear arms other than trying to control the federal government and judiciary? You don't perceive working within the system as being a viable way to achieve your goals, alright, then what is?

What's the solution to immigration that doesn't rely on controlling the apparatus of the federal government?

Answering this requires understanding the grievance.

Reds oppose illegal immigration for two primary reasons: first, they think Blues are attempting to import an electoral majority, and second, they think the immigrants place additional strain on our social systems, economy, etc.

You can't stop immigrants and their kids from voting against you, but you can minimize the effect by obstructing and undermining the reach of federal law from the state level, as Blues routinely do regarding immigration enforcement and a host of other issues. If the Federal government escalates against this obstruction, there are a variety of mechanisms by which one can escalate back.

Likewise, you can't stop immigrants and their kids from straining social systems in the area they settle in, but you can expedite their travel to Blue strongholds, at which point it's not really your problem any more, is it?

For gun rights, this means following the route of Marijuana legalization: degrade the public's respect for the law and its enforcers, encourage defiance and violation of the statues, undermine all efforts at enforcement, generate a social norm of scorn and shame for anyone who would cooperate with the pigs. Worry less about writing laws, and more about controlling social consensus. Make it clear that this topic is not subject to the democratic process, that it doesn't matter who wins the elections or what laws are passed, and do it on a scale and to a degree that enforcement is simply not worth the effort from the other side. Continue to advance technology that makes the laws completely unenforceable. If they push for it anyway, escalate, and keep escalating till they cave.

Blues have a workable strategy. Copy the elements that can be effectively copied.

You don't perceive working within the system as being a viable way to achieve your goals, alright, then what is?

Blue Tribe has demonstrated the capacity to defy our system of law when it runs counter to their perceived interests. I am more interested in securing an equivalent capacity for my own tribe, than in securing levers of power that evidently don't actually control outcomes. If given the choice between the capacity to set federal law or defy federal law, I would prefer the later; I am far more interested in not being controlled than I am in controlling others.

For gun rights, this means following the route of Marijuana legalization: degrade the public's respect for the law and its enforcers, encourage defiance and violation of the statues, undermine all efforts at enforcement, generate a social norm of scorn and shame for anyone who would cooperate with the pigs.

And the problem here is that gun rights people are mostly conservatives. You can easily get 12 conservatives on a jury to send a man down on a felony count for having a 15-round magazine in New Jersey, because they're conservatives. From that point of view, even if they think the law is wrong, they think that you don't just violate it, you follow the proper procedures. The fact that all the proper procedures were followed and gun rights were upheld does not matter; if following proper procedures didn't get rid of the law, you need to follow proper procedures some more until the correct result is achieved. If the people in charge aren't following proper procedures, why, you just follow the proper procedures to remove them, but as long as that law is in place you follow it or suffer the consequences. They can't stop thinking that way because the institutions are corrupted, because that would make them not conservatives, and they can't be other than that.

More comments

They fund the executive branch every year.

Wheeeeeee!

Not enough effort. Please don't post like this.

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