site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26230 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The remaining primaries and convention at this point serve as little more than a coronation for the inevitable Trump nomination. It was discussed last week the unlikely circumstances in which Trump is prevented from running. The questions now are:

  1. The likelihood Trump wins? Betting markets put the odds between 40-60%, which is not that useful but is what I would expect. The election will be very close and come down to the usual swing states like in 2020 and 2016. Biden's approval ratings are precariously low for an incumbent, especially given that the Electoral College works to Trump's advantage.

  2. What will a second Trump term be like? My guess is much like his first term. A lot of hollow populist gestures to his base but not much happens. I still don't understand these people who are otherwise centrist or middle-left like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith, who predict or expect a foreign policy crisis if trump wins , but always fail to articulate what this entails. I guess they have to keep toeing the 'orange man bad' line even though he was not that bad, and the economy and other metrics did well under his presidency (until Covid, which was out of his control anyway). Key alliances were strained much, as commonly feared in 2016-2017. The leadership of allies like Germany and France begrudgingly accepted Trump, and not much else happened.

I don't have much else to add except that I was reading the WSJ today and several polls showed between 22% and 34% of Republican voters stating that a criminal conviction would disqualify Trump from office.

Huh? How snail-brained are 22-34% of these voters? Why would you care if he gets convicted?

I could understand saying a credible accusation is disqualifying. I could understand saying his behavior was disqualifying in and of itself. But why would you outsource your vote to the jury pool of Georgia?

I don't know if jury selection in a place like New York might be inevitably biased, but Georgia was very close to 50/50 in the 2020 election, wasn't it? So wouldn't it be one of the best states for ensuring a balanced jury pool?

If he is actually convicted in Georgia, then people's priors about Trump being a criminal should and will change.

Why the downvote @FiveHourMarathon?

I could see there maybe being an argument that a conviction would only change priors slightly, but it absolutely should have a nonzero effect.

But why would you outsource your vote to the jury pool of Georgia?

The same reason anyone outsources any judgements to anything: a level of epistemic humility, and acknowledging that other people and systems may know things you don't.

Republicans are the Tough on Crime party after all, Back the Blue and harsher mandatory sentencing and all of that. Their policy positions wouldn't make a lot of sense if they didn't think that criminal convictions had at least some pretty high correlation with actual states of guilt.

Some percentage may implicitly be thinking about a conviction under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, though he is not actually being charged with such in any venue.

Huh? How snail-brained are 22-34% of these voters? Why would you care if he gets convicted?

The fact you'd say this is a pretty emblematic of how crazy the US (and this site) have become. This might seem like a hot take, but people generally don't want their leaders to be convicted felons.

Well, maybe that would have held more true back before trust in institutions collapsed. Those 22-34% are the last vestiges of that era. The thought is that anyone can lob an accusation, but a conviction carries more weight. Yes, most people understand that prosecutors would generally only bring cases that have a good chance of winning, but they can still fudge around the edges.

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it. That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to. Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it.

If I saw that, my first thought would be that I’m watching an AI-generated deepfake that was put together ahead of time and the fact that it’s “live TV” was a lie.

My second would be, “Did that person deserve it?”

Honestly, this was my first thought as well.

Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it.

Depending who he 'murders' his approval may go up. As long as they're bad dudes it's probably a good thing.

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it. That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to. Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!

This is a bit too boo-outgroup.

One of replies is that their second thought would be “Did that person deserve it?”

I think that it is actually accurate description of situation.

I agree it probably skirted the line after rereading it, but I have two questions:

  1. Would it still get dinged if I balanced it by saying the far left could probably do something similar?
  2. Do you think Arjin's post down below also violates the rules? It's basically the mirror inverse of mine, but I notice you haven't modded it like you've modded mine.

Would it still get dinged if I balanced it by saying the far left could probably do something similar?

You'd get double dinged.

Do you think Arjin's post down below also violates the rules? It's basically the mirror inverse of mine, but I notice you haven't modded it like you've modded mine.

It wasn't reported. But even if it had been I probably would have approved it. I quoted three sentences from you. The first sentence I quoted is what Arjin said a mirror inverse of. But your first sentence was mostly quoted for context. The next two sentences were the bad parts, and I don't think Arjin said anything like those.

That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to.

Some words/phrases aren't really good for fostering discussion. They are more about denigrating people you disagree with. In general use phrases that people would use to describe themselves, or if you don't like those phrases (which is common) try to use a neutralish term. And if you don't think there is a neutralish term, be prepared to defend the use of an aggressive/denigrating term.

Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!

Along with the previous denigrating term in the last sentence this sentence is basically saying "these people suck".

This might seem like a hot take, but people generally don't want their leaders to be convicted felons.

Better than felons who are unconvicted because a corrupt system protects them.

What always trips me up about sentiments like this is that I agree with them... and that's a big part of why I'm a prison abolitionist, you can't trust the justice system to deliver real justice and shouldn't premise everything on it's ability to do so.

But most people expressing these sentiments are not prison abolitionists, many of them among Republicans want to be tougher on crime with harsher sentencing and so forth, and I don't understand the epistemic state that lets someone dismiss the justice system as obviously corrupt when it works against someone they like, but reliable enough to throw people in jail for life willy-nilly otherwise.

What always trips me up about sentiments like this is that I agree with them...

You straightforwardly don't, though. The fact that you have a critique of an element of the justice system and I have a critique of an element of the justice system doesn't mean that those critiques share any meaningful overlap, whether in focus, hypothesized mechanisms, evidence presented, standards by which that evidence is measured, proposed solutions or standards by which the effects of those solutions should be assessed.

...and that's a big part of why I'm a prison abolitionist, you can't trust the justice system to deliver real justice and shouldn't premise everything on it's ability to do so.

I could, as you have, claim to likewise be in favor of prison abolition, on the understanding that I and people like myself will simply band together to punish criminality directly through immediate and severe violence against perpetrators rather than deferring to sclerotic, compromised and increasingly incompetent institutions. After all, if there's no jail to send criminals to any more, than naively one might assume that there's no jail to send those who simply beat or shoot criminals to, either. Only, I don't think this is actually what you have in mind by the term "prison abolition", and it seems to me that blurring the distinction between our positions and values only generates misunderstandings and frustration without advancing meaningful conversation.

I don't recall you ever making a case for prison abolition, though I'd certainly be interested in discussing it if you ever chose to. As with your recent post on race, I'm interested in the discussion, but that requires an actual willingness to discuss, rather than limiting oneself to laments over discussion that isn't happening. I've provided some examples of why I consider the justice systems deployed against Trump to be compromised; if you've got a similar list for why you consider the justice system deployed against ordinary murderers and thieves to be compromised, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Whoever you reesponded to, their post is still marked as filtered, and I can't see it.

It was darwin. He must have finally triggered something in the site code.

There are problems in the enforcement of justice, but it's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. I presume you're referring to the Hunter Biden stuff? Well, that's largely symmetrical to Trump's Russia investigation: Lots of smoke, not much actual fire (at least by the president himself), yet partisans whip themselves into a frenzy over the issue since they're getting a maximally damning picture due to their filtered media consumption. Biden could very well face a frivolous impeachment trial like Trump did as well.

Well, that's largely symmetrical to Trump's Russia investigation:

This is extremely wrong and a sign that you haven't done the required research to talk authoritatively about this topic. There's absolutely no symmetry to the Carter Page warrant, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller panel etc, and vice versa with the Hunter Art shows or Laptop photos.

I've done quite a bit of research of both. Not as much as many extreme partisans who keep track of daily updates, but more than enough to get a good picture. I stand by what I said: if you want to find bias or wrongdoing then it exists in both investigations. If you want to find crimes by people merely involved in the scandal that aren't the president, you can do it. If you want to actually get to wrongdoing by the president himself, that's a lot harder. There's morally grey stuff, but not much that's technically illegal.

but more than enough to get a good picture.

Are you sure? The things I listed there specifically in my post are what I feel distinguish the two cases. There's absolutely no equivalence to Crossfire Hurricane or the Carter Page FISA warrant in the Biden cases, and I feel it is dishonest to even imply it. There's a huge world of difference there and collapsing the distinction makes your thinking lazier and less clear.

The Carter Page stuff was bad, but ultimately more as a factor against the FBI than to the broader investigation as a whole. Carter Page was not indicted, nor did he feature particularly prominently in the final report compared to people like Papadopoulos or Manafort. Then there's the issue of whether that stuff meant the investigation was started from partisan motives, but similar accusations have been levelled in the reverse direction for Hunter. It's also pretty easy to point to Giuliani, who was one of the leading proponents of the Hunter stuff since it's inception, as Giuliani isn't exactly the cleanest guy himself. Or heck, even the recent deposition stuff, where House Republicans initially said they'd accept any type of deposition with Hunter, before reneging and saying they'd only accept a closed deposition, something Hunter specifically wanted to avoid due to the likelihood of the Republicans selectively leaking testimony to present a skewed picture.

More comments

Last I heard, it's been confirmed that Hunter Biden got his bribes selling access to Joe to foreign entities, and some portion of the bribe money ended up in Joe's bank account. I'm pretty sure that's a felony.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton set up an illegal email server to evade lawful oversight, sent classified documents through it, and then attempted to cover up her crimes. I'm pretty sure there are at least a few felonies there.

Likewise, Bill Clinton appears to have been a rapist.

I'm not sure if George W Bush lying the country into a disastrous war is technically a felony, but it certainly ought to be. Ditto for Obama's administration intentionally supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels, which were then used to attack and murder American citizens, in an apparent attempt to generate support for gun control legislation.

I disagree that it's not as bad as I'm making it out to be. In fact, I think it is pretty much exactly that bad. I do not concede that the existing system retains any shred of legitimacy whatsoever. All that remains is the question of how to coordinate sufficient meanness to allow something more fit to be built on its ruins.

Ditto for Obama's administration intentionally supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels

link for more info would be appreciated

Wiki

Writeup from the first page of search results.

OK, incompetent sting operation technically counts for quoted part.

But

in an apparent attempt to generate support for gun control legislation

is missing.

I don’t see your angle here. Condemning the ATF for causing the deaths of mexican and parisian civilians and that border patrol guy, implies that letting people buy weapons is complicity in murder. You can either condemn the ATF, Obama, and the right to bear arms, or none of the above.

If you're a consistent 2A gunman, you have to, you know, bite the bullet. Obviously some of the legally sold guns are going to kill people. But guns don't kill people, and anyway protection against tyranny is worth it, and so on. So the ATF is perfectly innocent here.

More comments

Operation Fast and Furious

In November 2009, the ATF’s Phoenix field office launched an operation in which guns bought by drug-cartel straw purchasers in the U.S. were allowed to “walk” across the border into Mexico. ATF agents would then track the guns as they made their way through the ranks of the cartel.

At least, that was the theory. In reality, once the guns walked across the border, they were gone. Whistleblowers reported, and investigators later confirmed, that the ATF made no effort to trace the guns.

Wikipedia page

Gunwalking, or "letting guns walk", was a tactic used by the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office and the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations between 2006 and 2011 in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them". However, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures had been arrested.

I'm surprised this wasn't immediately recognized, but I guess I'm old, and it was at the very start of the Obama administration.

Or, as my neighbor once said, Obama had a scandal-free presidency. He meant it as an indication that Obama behaved well while in office. I took that to mean that the media did not allow him to suffer from any scandals, including F&F gun running.

No, actually both are just as bad.

I disagree. If criminals must have power, I would rather have a criminal whose crimes the justice system can engage with in power than one whose crimes the justice system is forced to ignore.

Well, maybe that would have held more true back before trust in institutions collapsed.

Yes, why would trust do such a thing to institutions? The institutions are free of any responsibility for trust collapsing.

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it.

The flipside of it is that the current political establishment could start hauling off dissidents to psychiatric hospitals USSR-style, and the 22-34% that are the last vestiges of that era would bemoan how Republicans no longer trust medical professionals.

The flipside of it is that the current political establishment could start hauling off dissidents to psychiatric hospitals USSR-style, and the 22-34% that are the last vestiges of that era would bemoan how Republicans no longer trust medical professionals.

I don't disagree.

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