site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   25706 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don’t agree with forcing expansive gun rights on liberal states whose electorates have clearly rejected them.

Fine. Then Kim Davis gets her job back, all lawsuits dismissed, and gay marriage only exists in gay-friendly states. Otherwise, none of this "Federalism for thee but not for me stuff". Particularly since unlike gay marriage, gun rights are in the Constitution.

Yes exactly, why would any of that be wrong?

That would be wrong because- I apologize if this is overly tribal- why does it always have to be my side that unilaterally disarms as a show of faith? Allow Louisiana the death penalty for pedophilia again, and then we'll talk.

And I think that's the crux of the matter, really. I do not trust progressive politicians(or any politicians, but especially progressive ones), and the latent fear that they seemingly all have of the AR-15 owners of America all coming for them, personally, helps me sleep at night. Under a regime I fully trusted I would have no qualms about Czechia-like gun control, or maybe even France-like if they can get street crime under control(more and I would bitch about unnecessary bureaucracy). I fully believe that, given I have to be ruled by people who suspended civil rights over a glorified flu, that giving up my guns would just result in a brutal authoritarian regime casting me and mine under cagotage. Is this a rational belief? Don't know, don't care. When progressives disarm first I'll think about that question seriously.

That would be wrong because- I apologize if this is overly tribal- why does it always have to be my side that unilaterally disarms as a show of faith?

It doesn't, and I routinely would encourage my progressive friends (back when I had them) to do the same. But at the end of the day someone has to take the first step, and neither side trusts the other to reciprocate. So unless you're prepared to accept perpetual animosity between you and your political enemies, you should try to find ways to show good faith where possible.

So unless you're prepared to accept perpetual animosity between you and your political enemies,

My political enemies have demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that they will hold perpetual animosity against me and mine, and so I'm pretty much ready to return the favor. What then?

Then, you should probably refrain from letting your anger rule your decision making. The rest of us don't particularly care to watch the political crossfire continue to destroy the country.

  • -11

Please be more careful and specify for whom you’re speaking.

The rest of us

Who is "us"? This sounds like consensus-building/speaking-for-the-forum talk to me.

So unless you're prepared to accept perpetual animosity between you and your political enemies, you should try to find ways to show good faith where possible.

Again I point to Obergefell. There was very little resistance, and what there was was crushed with the assistance of conservatives who had respect for the institution if not the decision. Did this "show of good faith" result in any reciprocal co-operation? No. Defectbot continues to defect. There is no reason to co-operate, it will not result in reciprocity, it will only result in further defection.

When it all happens, I might consider objecting to conservatives pushing gun rights in blue states. Probably still reject it on the "it's in the god-damned constitution in black and off-white" grounds, but I'd consider it. Until then, they're absolutely doing the right thing, just not enough of it.

Gun rights are in the bill of rights, but given every legal benefit and cost around marriage I still think it's insane to deny recognition of gay marriage. It seems trivially easy to classify under equal protection.

  • -11

It seems trivially easy to classify under equal protection.

No, it really isn't; it's a huge stretch that would never have occurred to the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

After Obergefell, any official dissenter (and as far as I can tell Kim Davis was the only one) was overruled, fired and ruined. When the same is done to all these legislators, bureaucrats, governors, and lower court judges who are making Heller and Bruen into mere academic exercises, THEN perhaps gun rights will have been properly taken seriously.

Which of the following do you think should be covered under gun rights? Single-shot normal rifles, shotguns, assault rifles, SMGs, single-shot pistols, anti-materiel rifles, machine guns, technicals/IFVs, MANPADs, recoilless rifles, rocket launchers, tanks, Davy Crocketts?

(This is not mockery. The argument that's literally in the 2A - militia makes you harder to conquer - applies to all of the above except maybe Davy Crocketts.)

What sort of things do you think should be covered under free speech? Advertisements for restaurants, fiction novels, history papers, science papers, instructions on how to do illegal things, porn, advocacy of violent overthrow of the government, smears of politicians, orders to do illegal things?

Which is to say, I don't know the point of the question. Often enough similar question are asked in order to either say "Oh, so there's a limit... let's just push that back until a Brown Bess is covered but not much more" or "You monster, you'd accept nukes". Gun rights cover all of those except technicals and tanks (vehicles rather than arms) and maybe the nuclear projectile for Davy Crocketts. But just because I'm open to excluding the Davy Crockett doesn't mean I'm at all willing to play the game of "well, modern guns have a much higher rate of fire than 1781 muskets, so they shouldn't be covered either".

My parenthetical note was intended to make it clear that I'm not trying to do that foot-in-the-door tactic, but simply trying to get someone else's opinion on the matter. But whatever, you answered which is what I wanted. Is your line at vehicles driven by the actual text of 2A ("bear" arms), or by some argument I don't currently comprehend?

As for your question retort: not orders, and I split hairs on instructions/advocacy/smears. Specifically:

  • If someone grows cannabis illegally, we can deal with that after the fact; if someone builds a nuke illegally, it's a bit harder to deal with that after the fact, so I'm more concerned about the details of how to build an implosion nuke than I am about the details of how to grow cannabis (or even the details of how to make dynamite off-label, though I'm not about to spread the latter myself).
  • I generally draw the line at indirect/vague vs. direct/specific incitement.
  • Ignorant misinformation shouldn't be punishable, but I've no issue with banning disinformation with the associated mens rea of deliberate deception. Much less of a chilling effect from the latter.

Is your line at vehicles driven by the actual text of 2A ("bear" arms), or by some argument I don't currently comprehend?

The actual text. It's an academically interesting question about whether mounting a gun in the back of a Toyota Hilux counts under "bearing arms", but the Hilux itself isn't covered under "arms".

Ignorant misinformation shouldn't be punishable, but I've no issue with banning disinformation with the associated mens rea of deliberate deception. Much less of a chilling effect from the latter.

As we saw with COVID, that's an exception that can swallow most of the rule.

As we saw with COVID, that's an exception that can swallow most of the rule.

The various censorship on that was aimed at "misinformation"; AFAIK they rarely alleged deliberate lies. There's definitely a huge issue with trying to police misinformation, but if you can prove that someone's deliberately lying I see little issue.

I would say - if you can lift it and it doesn't kill indiscriminatory - it is protected under 2A. If it is - kills what it hits - 2A protection, if it is - anything in the area dies - it is not.

From your list - rifles, shotguns, smg, pistols, anti material rifles, machine guns, lasers, drones that stab.

reciolless rifles, rocket launchers, drones with grenades, davy crocketts - no

DMV can take care of the edge cases of tanks and IFV

Above is for the individual right to bear arms.

But here is the thing - a well regulated militia should have access to all of the above but the nukes and other WMD

recoilless rifles

Those are just regular rifles, but oversized. I think they should be legal.

They usually fire HE or HEAT. Flechette rounds would be legit, I suppose. ...Also, the backblast is pretty indiscriminate in and of itself.

After Obergefell, any official dissenter (and as far as I can tell Kim Davis was the only one) was overruled, fired and ruined.

Tbf, there were a handful of other jurisdictions that did not immediately comply, either by direct defiance or refusing to issue any marriage license, though with one exception this was largely ignored.

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