site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26786 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 8, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Texas Border Flareup... Again

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A607/295564/20240112012220571_23a607%20DHS%20v%20TX%20supplement.pdf

Border Patrol’s normal access to the border through entry points in the federal border barrier is likewise blocked by the Texas National Guard installing its own gates and placing armed personnel in those locations to control entry. See id. at 4a. And the Texas National Guard has likewise blocked Border Patrol from using an access road through the pre- existing state border barrier by stationing a military Humvee there.

Texas has seized a public park in Eagle Pass to take control of a 2.5 mile stretch of the border(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-blocks-federal-border-agents-processing-migrants-eagle-pass-shelby-park/). This is a bigger deal than it seems; the only boat launch and main surveillance point for miles is located there, effectively preventing border patrol from operating over a relatively wider frontage.

Context

The State of Texas has long been adding concertina wire to the border to prevent crossings, and has been accusing the federal government of cutting it to allow migrants to cross. Recently Texas won an injunction in court blocking the federal government from doing this, and the federal government has of course appealed, but the injunction includes an exception for if cutting the wire is necessary to assist migrants experiencing a medical emergency.

So Texas seized the main surveillance point and boat launch(in this sector) for the border patrol to prevent them seeing migrants experiencing a medical emergency. For the record, I don't trust the federal government with this "medical emergency" exception either, but this is flatly illegal in, well, pretty much every way you approach it.

https://news4sanantonio.com/news/trouble-shooters/texas-blocks-border-patrol-from-entering-key-area-for-illegal-crossings

Of course the border patrol union is siding with Abbott, which would make it awkward for fedgov if they cared. Although Abbott's justification has nothing to do with the border patrol union's:

Texas has the legal authority to control ingress and egress into any geographic location in the state of Texas, and that authority is being asserted with regard to that park in Eagle Pass

And anecdotally his fundraising emails are talking a lot more about state sovereignty than normal. It led to a twitter breakdown by Gina Hinojosa(head of the Texas democrats) accusing him of being a secessionist, and the admittedly low chance of Gina Hinojosa of all people meming Texas independence into the political mainstream through the power of negative partisanship is kind of hilarious.

But back to the topic at hand; it's unclear what Abbott's actual game is; he's an accomplished constitutional lawyer(literally; that's how he became governor) and knows he's going to lose at court. He's also never been the reckless type and so it's unlikely he did this without thinking it through. Angling for a Trump cabinet seat, maybe? It also surprises me that he did this now; primaries are coming up in March, and Abbott endorsed a relatively wide array of candidates to try to shift the house in a more partisan republican direction; taking a political risk like this one is unlike him.

On a very tangential note, I saw the Twitterati point and laugh at that upcoming movie about an American Civil War that somehow has California and Texas on the same side. Ignore the fact that that happened in my novel, but it was more that they both happened to oppose the Federal Government (well, you'd resent them a bit if they nuked every data center around to contain an AGI getting uppity, and Texas is surprisingly popular for those, not to mention glassing SF).

As such, if these secessionary sentiments ever become something more than posturing, at least I can get points for prescience.

Only people who have never seriously considered the idea could mock the possibility of an alliance between the two states with the strongest national identities against USG in a CW scenario.

They do so because it doesn't neatly follow from their political intuitions. And ignore that in an open conflict ideological loyalty is even more tenuous than normal.

Any look at Syria shows alliances of circumstance are routine. And any look at the middle east more broadly should complete this understanding with the practical reality that ideology is one of the last predictors of political loyalties if you stand to lose something more significant than your pride.

Texas and California can be friends like the IRA and the PLO.

Agreed, I recently tried to understand the current Tigray War in Ethiopia and it is such a clusterfuck that some factions are allied to each other but at the same time they are also allied to enemies of their allies which makes them enemies in ways that can easily make your eyes water. All in the midst of ethnic, religious, tribal, and of course personal allegiances shifting constantly. Not to even talk about regional and international spillover.

Both the IRA and PLO were left-wing militias.

Or consider Lebanon, where every ethnic/religious militia has at one time or another aligned both with and against every other militia.

Well, they're perfectionists in Lebanon. The leader of the HRC doesn't walk around with an internal monolog that asks "boy, I've never fought a battle with the NRA, let's check that off the list." Maybe he should. I hear the ACLU used to think that way, and possibly still does.

Makes sense for a genuine civil liberties organization, because every political faction wants to violate someone's civil rights some of the time and so the civil rights will do well to practice its independence by calling everyone out on their misbehaviour. So I would expect FIRE to do it in the modern age more than the ACLU.

When it comes to identity, I think it is Texas big gap then runner up. Not sure if that runner up is California or Florida.

Alaska for the runner-up, surely.

Also Hawaii, there is a pretty substantial Hawaiian Nationalist movement.

Ethnic Hawaiians? Or who?

Yeah. I get the impression it's sort of a "dog chasing car" movement--most of their support would evaporate were it a real possibility.

I think Alaska might have as strong an identity as Texas. The real weirdness in that civil war movie map is that Oklahoma isn't part of Texas.

East coast guy who knew — tangentially — one person from Alaska so defer to your knowledge

Indeed, that was the logic I was using. After the fictional Civil War, they remained two independent states (well, they don't have a contiguous land border), so I consider "allies of convenience" an apt label.

Adversity makes for strange bed fellows, especially when there's someone more powerful who you both hate.

Since the movie hasn't actually come out, God knows what the geopolitics there are, though I'm inclined to think that they picked those two particular states because of how absurd they think an alliance would be, explicitly presenting them as a unified entity, so as to avoid accusations of inflaming tensions (not that it did).

I'll admit I haven't seriously considered the idea, but I can't come up with something the USG can do that will alienate both CA and TX and 17 more states, but not the rest of the states.

It looks from that map like the federal government tried to take unilateral control of water allocation and decided to prioritize big cities in deserts(Pheonix, Santa Fe, Las Vegas), driving a wedge between Texas/California on the one hand and the states in between on the other and alienating the south(which is extremely rainy) with some kind of infrastructure project to transport water northwards. The bigger question is how the northwest stuck together when it jumped; it doesn't make any sense how the red and blue states there weren't at each others' throats instantly.

Oh, my goodness, you have got to read Cadillac Desert, a book about water that is one of my all-time classics. I wish I were more motivated to do good, solid, effort posts, because a review of that book could really work...

Large unilateral extension of federal domain? Later states have a lot more of it than early ones.

Texas has very little federal land. California has a lot, but so do the neighboring loyalists.

You're not wrong and yet I feel like that if shit were to hit the fan tomorrow it would be the coastal cities vs the Mormons, the Episcopalians, and the Texans.

vs the Mormons, the Episcopalians, and the Texans.

Do you mean something else?

Yah I was thinking of the Presbyterians, I always get those two flipped in my head for some reason.

Still a wealthy nursing home de jure committed to political liberalism, unless you mean the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, who are one of the smaller confessional protestant groups IIRC. They're loud on the internet but I don't think any more common than IRL tradcaths.

Do you mean the confessional Lutherans, who are indeed numerous and concentrated enough to be potentially relevant? Or are you generally referring to conservative protestants- who are extremely relevant politically right now, but the vast majority of whom are evangelical(that is, not Presbyterian- more likely to be Baptist or Pentecostal)?

Episcopalians? The denomination that couldn't turn liberal fast enough and thus provoked some vicious lawsuits over parishes trying to leave? First women clergy, first trans likewise, first gay/lesbian bishops, first female primate, first first first - of course, they've never been dominant numerically and they've been leaking numbers like a sieve, but they boast of having the richest parish in the nation, of being the National Cathedral (even though you guys don't have a state church) and, under the First Female Ever, a rather desperate claim to being a mini-communion of their own - they're so international, you see, with "108 dioceses and three mission areas in 22 countries or territories" which totally makes them the equivalent of the Anglicans or the Romans!

Since the end of the tenure of the First Female Ever and her replacement by a cis, straight, male (though he is African-American), they've quietened down a lot on all that, but still - the Episcopalians versus the coastal cities? Noo Yawk is a coastal city, is it not, and that's where they're headquartered and where all their historical associations are, and you think they'd throw that over to row in with a buncha flyover rednecks?

Blaim my general ignorance of protestant denominations, I'm always getting the Congregationalists, the Episcopalians, and the Presbyterians, flipped around in my head.

Don't worry, it's very confusing for everybody. But it did make us sit up and open our eyes when you put in the Piskies as lining up with Texas. California, I could see, if California was squaring up to the federal government over something; as good liberal footsoldiers TEC would have statements of support and flags and protests and blessings for the rebels before you could blink.

All three of those are liberal Protestant groups with membership that couldn’t get older if they tried.

The largest segment of conservative Protestantism are evangelicals(mostly Baptist with a large pentecostal minority), with confessional Lutherans and continuing anglicans vying for a very distant second and groups like churches of Christ and orthodox Presbyterians being practically tiny. The supermajority of socially conservative Christians and Christian adjacent believers in the US are evangelical, catholic, or restorationist(mostly mormon). Non-evangelical conservative Protestantism and Orthodoxy(to the point where sociological surveys usually don’t bother distinguishing mass attending orthodox from Catholics) are rounding errors nationally although some of them are concentrated enough to be regionally important.

sociological surveys usually don’t bother distinguishing mass attending orthodox from Catholics

Well, I wouldn't either, if the orthodox in question are attending the sacrifice of the mass and not the divine liturgy! (this is tongue in cheek)

Maybe it's just my local area, but conservative Presbyterians seem bigger than Lutherans or the continuing Anglicans. Though I do get the sense they're much older than even the Lutherans or Anglicans, who seem to have at least a few younger members and families.

I think Presbyterians just have a hard time distinguishing themselves from the Reformed Baptists, especially given their generally low/moderate sacramental theology. My sense is that conservative Christians who get themselves interested in some Calvin just stay where they are and see their Calvinism as a theological spin on their existing denominational affiliation (heck, around here even the continuing Anglicans are calvinists, much to my chagrin). I actually think Calvinism is kind of the evangelical Protestant version of being a trad -- male, intellectual, a little stuck up. And I say this as someone who was really attracted to Calvinism before I realized I had to find a place where the eucharistic theology was unapologetically realist and baptism was regeneration ipso facto -- so you can infer from that what you will about me.

Why Episcopalians?

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