site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

  1. It serves my politics
  2. I hope my reasoning isn’t motivated reasoning and I’m making distinctions for good reasons

Don't these points contradict each other?

Doesn’t your insurrection views do the same thing?

And yes I wander how much of my view is usefulness versus honest reasoning.

Doesn’t your insurrection views do the same thing?

No.

I have strong views about various aspects of law. For example, I think laws should be enforced strictly whether I agree with them or not, I think judges should apply the law as written and not turn themselves into policymakers, I think the meaning of a law is set at the time it is enacted and (unless specifically written to do so) it does not change over time, etc. Basically I'm a firm law-and-order conservative who endorses the originalist legal philosophy.

It follows from this perspective that I should endorse legal definitions according to their original public meaning. For example, the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". Hanging is pretty unusual these days but was not at the time the amendment was adopted. So is hanging "cruel and unusual punishment"? I say no, and the fact that I am opposed to the death penalty is irrelevant to that question.

The question for me is not whether I like broad definitions or narrow ones, or whether a certain definition helps Donald Trump or hurts Donald Trump. It is what a normal reasonable person would have understood words and phrases to have meant at the time the law was made.