site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29061 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Colorado Supreme Court holds:

A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings.

[recent related discussion, slightly older]

The Colorado Presidential Primary is scheduled for March 5th, for both parties. As the decision notes, January 4, 2024 is "the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot)"; while the matter is open to further stay should federal courts intervene, such an intervention would itself determine at least the state presidential primary.

How are the procedural protections? From the dissent:

As President Trump, argues and the Electors do not contest, section 1-1-113’s procedures do not provide common tools for complex fact-finding: preliminary evidentiary or pre-trial motions hearings, subpoena powers, basic discovery, depositions, and time for disclosure of witnesses and exhibits. This same concern was raised in Frazier; the then-Secretary argued that “it is impossible to fully litigate a complex constitutional issue within days or weeks, as is typical of a section 1-1-113 proceeding.”...

Despite clear requirements, the district court did not follow section 1-4-1204’s statutory timeline for section 1-1-113 claims. The proceeding below involved two delays that, respectively, violated (1) the requirement that the merits hearing be held within five days of the challenge being lodged, and (2) the requirement that the district court issue its order within forty-eight hours of the merits hearing.

And the other dissent:

Thus, based on its interpretation of Section Three, our court sanctions these makeshift proceedings employed by the district court below—which lacked basic discovery, the ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and the opportunity for a fair trial—to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) masquerading as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim...

and

Even with the unauthorized statutory alterations made by the district court, the aggressive deadlines and procedures used nevertheless stripped the proceedings of many basic protections that normally accompany a civil trial, never mind a criminal trial. There was no basic discovery, no ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, no workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and no final resolution of many legal issues affecting the court’s power to decide the Electors’ claim before the hearing on the merits.

There was no fair trial either: President Trump was not offered the opportunity to request a jury of his peers; experts opined about some of the facts surrounding the January 6 incident and theorized about the law, including as it relates to the interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment generally and Section Three specifically; and the court received and considered a partial congressional report, the admissibility of which is not beyond reproach.

Did the Colorado Supreme Court provide a more serious and deep analysis of the First Amendment jurisprudence, at least?

The district court also credited the testimony of Professor Peter Simi, a professor of sociology at Chapman University, whom it had “qualified . . . as an expert in political extremism, including how extremists communicate, and how the events leading up to and including the January 6 attack relate to longstanding patterns of behavior and communication by political extremists.”

He testified, according to the court’s summary, that (1) “violent far-right extremists understood that [President] Trump’s calls to ‘fight,’ which most politicians would mean only symbolically, were, when spoken by [President] Trump, literal calls to violence by these groups, while [President] Trump’s statements negating that sentiment were insincere and existed to obfuscate and create plausible deniability,”

There are interpretations here other than that of the Russell Conjugation: that stochastic terrorism is limited to this tiny portion of space, or perhaps that shucks there just hasn't ever been some opportunity to worry about it ever before and they're tots going to consistently apply this across the political spectrum in the future. They are not particularly persuasive to me, from this expert.

Perhaps more damning, this is what the majority found a useful one to highlight : a sociology professor who has been playing this tune since 2017.

If you put a gun to my head, I'd bet that this is overturned, or stayed until moot. But that's not a metaphor I pick from dissimilarity.

This whole quagmire could be avoided if republicans simply let go of Trump and supported someone not so old and so indicted, but they love marching into a trap.

  • -23

I have a lot of doubt about Trump's ability to win in 2024, but I can't think of any better option for Republicans to run. Who do you think the Republicans have who would have a better chance of winning the general election than Trump does? Haley slightly outperforms him against Biden in swing states according to a recent poll, but for me that's an "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of thing because to me Haley seems pretty devoid of charisma* and every single President since maybe George H.W. Bush has had at least some level of charisma, whether it's the Clinton and Obama "cool young guy" thing, the George W. Bush "down-home guy you can imagine having a beer with" thing, the Trump "funny macho troll" thing, or the Biden "cantankerous old guy who's willing to talk a bit of shit" thing.

But maybe I'm overrating charisma, or underrating how much of it the non-Trump Republican candidates have.

*Which is not entirely her fault, I think. It's just that to the viewer's ape brain, her combativeness works less well because she is a woman than it would if she were a man.

Trump goes down in the polls if he's found guilty, which he very well may be. Nimrata Haley is complete trash (pro war and anti anonymity), DeSantis is the obvious right choice.

The problem with DeSantis is that his record of legislation, rhetoric, and stunts is 'evil' enough by progressive/Dem standards that once they were educated about him in the General election, he might drive up Democratic turnout at the polls almost as much as Trump does.

What the Republicans should do if they want to win is put up some boring bog-standard fiscal conservative. Run Mitt Romney again or something. Republicans won't be excited about him, but it's not like they're going to vote for a democrat.

Political pundits have been wondering for years how Democrats have such low approval for Biden and really don't want him to run, yet also turn out to vote for him and his party consistently and plan to support him 100%. The cause for this unusual state of affairs is the hatred and fear of Trump, serving as a rallying point to turn every election cycle into a crusade. No Dems are going to step out of line or tolerate their friends doing so while a second Trump term is on the table.

Take away that rallying point, and the whole thing could collapse. Dems could remember how much they are uninspired by Biden, and not show up to the polls. The long-expected fight for the soul of the party between the old-guard classical liberals and the young progressives, which has been suppressed by mutual hatred of Trump for most of a decade, could finally boil over into open conflict in the middle of an election, ensuring an easy win and Congressional landslide for Reps.

There's been lots of talk over the last 7 years about how Trump and MAGA represent a major realignment for the Republican party, and how the chaos of that realignment has fractured and weakened the party in ways that turned expected wins into losses. Democrats are also long-overdue for such a realignment, Republicans just need to get out of the way.

I think it'd be good for the country to have a centrist like Mitt Romney in charge just so that everyone can calm down for a bit.

The worry for Republicans, and why they won't nominate a centrist, is that centrist Republicans have completely caved to globalist pressure on core issues like immigration, Covid lockdowns, and LGBT celebration.

I agree with you that the media will lay off any Republican who defects on core issues. Want to cut taxes for the rich and start a couple new wars like George Bush? No problem. Want to stop illegal immigration and shut down youth gender transition? Jihad.

But we actually had Romney as a candidate and he was smeared as a misogynistic devil, "vulture capitalist", etc. The mildest possible Republican was the presidential candidate and it didn't matter. They'll be just as hysterical in their smears. Then, years later, they'll reminisce about how Republicans used to not be so bad, like Romney.

I think it'd be good for the country to have a centrist like Mitt Romney in charge just so that everyone can calm down for a bit.

No. Blues do not get to veto Red leaders by threat of violence or institutional destruction. They have broken the social contract. They have to lose, and the correct play is to either hold position or escalate until that happens.

They have to lose, and the correct play is to either hold position or escalate until that happens.

What if they can't lose. What if we "escalate" as far as we can, and still get crushed utterly?

Trump is probably the most centrist candidate, if you look at actual polling on the issues. He's only "not centrist" in that he dissents from the nondemocratic "Washington Consensus" established by entrenched by would-be technocrats, bureaucracy, and special interests.

That's a great point. Trump is a dissident, not a radical. It's okay to be conservative as long as you are part of the blob. (Witness, the rehabilitation of George W. Bush). Being a dissident is never allowed.

I agree with you that the media will lay off any Republican who defects on core issues.

They won't lay off. They didn't lay off Romney himself last time he ran. They want a "moderate" Republican to run so they win either way, but they'd still rather win big with the Democrat.

They didn't lay off Romney himself last time he ran.

It's an issue of scale isn't it? The media treatment of Romney (binders full of women!!!) was stupid, but it never approached anything like what we're seeing now. It's like the difference between conventional and thermonuclear weapons.

Our current president said to a largely-Black crowd at a campaign rally that Romney would put them "back in chains".

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