site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   24896 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 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.

8
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Indeed, it's a humiliation ritual. Again, I cannot even name one statue of Stalin or Lenin that suffered the same fate.

Neither Stalin nor Lenin betrayed their country. This kind of ritual humiliation was SOP for traitors, which Lee was - or at least an unsuccessful rebel, which counts as a traitor under the traditional rules. You can argue that Lenin was a traitor to the Kerensky government, but he was a successful rebel so it doesn't count.

Neither Stalin nor Lenin betrayed their country.

Beg your pardon, but how is literally overthrowing their government any less of treason than trying to secede?

This kind of ritual humiliation was SOP for traitors, which Lee was - or at least an unsuccessful rebel, which counts as a traitor under the traditional rules.

Was he declared a traitor immediately after the war by the side that won?

You can argue that Lenin was a traitor to the Kerensky government, but he was a successful rebel so it doesn't count.

If this is your moral framework you should declare it from the start, because using generic words like "traitor" leads me to the mistaken conclusion that you are using the word the same way I would. To me, what you're saying here sounds like "it's not cheating if your wife never finds out".

It also seems like a punk move to do it 160 years later. To me, it seems pathetic.

And General Lee was never charged with, nor found guilty of, "treason", so that doesn't count either.

Leaving aside the fact that he was, indeed, charged with treason, are you seriously contending that an American who waged war against the US did not commit treason? Because that is the literal definition of treason

Excuse me but somehow I don’t feel compelled by an argument based on a grand jury indictment that is described as “forgotten legal and moral case” that “went missing for 72 years” (Huh? What even?). Considering a case where a general of a defeated army isn’t found guilty by any court on the victorious side of treason, or anything of the same magnitude for that matter, I’m prone to accept their judgment, or rather lack thereof, instead of that of modern-day Red Guards 150 years later who’re obviously all cocksure in their own ability to always know better.

But anyway, I get your point, or at least I think I do, but keeping in mind that accusing someone, even in his grave, of treason is serious business, especially if he was held in high regard by Churchill, Eisenhower, Wilson and so on (see the link above) so I think we ought to word such accusations accurately. What exactly did Lee betray? A constitution that is explicitly anti-racist and forbids slavery? Clearly not. A federal system that clearly forbids the secession of federal states in all cases? As far as I know, that’s not the case either – again, I understand that that Confederate states technically didn’t secede in a legal manner. A president who wanted to abolish slavery? No.

At the end of the day, what he did betray in full is a political code which holds that a military officer, when appointed and ordered, is to march his men into his own homeland and wreak destruction on it as if it was enemy territory.

What he "betrayed" is not particularly relevant. He literally waged war on his country, and he commanded armies which killed tens of thousands of his fellow citizens. To try to argue that that isn't "really" treason is rather silly. It is certainly possible to argue that he deserves a statute despite committing treason -- lots of people deserve statues despite having done some bad things -- but to argue that he didn't commit treason at all does not make sense.

he commanded armies which killed tens of thousands of his fellow citizens

Well, yes. Armies kill people; that's what they do. But anyway, I stand by what I said: if a military officer does not get sentenced for treason even in a political situation such as that we are discussing here, I see no good argument to call him a traitor.

Armies kill people; that's what they do

Yes, that is the point.

Anyhow, if you really think "is no good argument to call him a traitor" -- like, literally, no good argument -- I guess we need to agree to disagree.

He literally waged war on his country

I was under the impression that his country declared independence from the country he waged war on?

So, if I renounce my US citizenship, declare my state an independent country, and lead an army towards Washington, DC, I have not committed treason? Neat trick! It does raise the question of why a pardon of Confederate soldiers was deemed necessary, however. This conversation is bordering on silliness. I really do not understand the need to refuse to concede a single point to one's opponents in an argument. Again, it is perfectly possible to argue that Lee deserves to have a statute, despite committing treason.

So, if I renounce my US citizenship, declare my state an independent country, and lead an army towards Washington, DC, I have not committed treason? Neat trick!

Yes. It's called secession. Though I think you should just defend your territory rather than march on the enemy capital. Many such cases. Some of them successful, the United States of America being one of them.

It does raise the question of why a pardon of Confederate soldiers was deemed necessary, however.

Simple: to show them who's boss.

I really do not understand the need to refuse to concede a single point to one's opponents in an argument. Again, it is perfectly possible to argue that Lee deserves to have a statute, despite committing treason.

Yes, I know. Consider the possibility that I do not have a need to refuse to concede a single point, but I just disagree on the matter.

Yes. It's called secession.

That, of course, begs the question.

Many such cases. Some of them successful, the United States of America being one of them.

Yes, and what the American colonists did was clearly treason. There is a reason that Franklin said, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Just as they committed treason because they literally waged war against the Crown, so, too, Lee committed treason by literally waging war against the US. The fact that the colonists won means nothing, just as the fact that an act of terrorism leads to the achievement of political goals does not mean the perpetrators did not commit an act of terrorism.

More comments

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