site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   18417 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 29, 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 Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Re the first one, does this extend to cases where someone's a dual citizen due to essentially not being able to get rid of their second citizenship?

Yes. There are many jobs that your friend would still be eligible for.

The bounds of this are interesting. Let's say I'm an absolute dictator in a brand new country in western asia (some breakaway province that it's convenient for the rest of the world to recognize), let's call it Trollistan. Can I keep people unfriendly to me out of your government by declaring them citizens and then not allowing them to revoke the citizenship?

If not, why? If it's because they didn't chose Trollistan, it doesn't seem that different than someone being born somewhere (which they don't chose), and then not being allowed to give the citizenship up later.

Do you really see no difference between:

  • Has never been to a place.

  • Was born in a place, was a citizen of a place, eventually left the place and went to another place and went through the process of becoming a citizen of that second, new place where they weren't born

?

I see a difference in that. But that's not what we're talking about here, considering natural born citizenship generally passes from parents to children, not only to people that are born in a place. Being born in a place automatically conferring citizenship is kind of a new world thing, most places in the old world don't do that (source)

In the current world, you can be a citizen of a place you've never been to already. And you can be incapable of giving up that citizenship. And that doesn't seem to be an exception for you, so I'm not sure why it's an important difference here.

The relevant difference is:

  • Place your family has history
  • Place your family doesn't have history

If that's not the relevant difference, I think you need to start carving out some exemptions to your policy.

By that reasoning it's fine to bar him from taking part in any job whose name starts with the letters Q through Z. After all, even with that restriction there are many jobs he could take.

But it's totally arbitrary. Why do we have an interest in preventing someone from taking some jobs just because they refuse to put themselves in physical danger by going to Russia?

The government by its nature exerts power over me. It takes my money (by force), and implements behavioral prescriptions that it enforces with violence.

That's different than most jobs, and because of that different scrutiny should be applied to the people being entrusted with that power. I'm sorry your friend really wants to have that power but can't, but honestly in this scenario I am going to start wondering why they want the power that badly.

but honestly in this scenario I am going to start wondering why they want the power that badly.

Probably for the same reason they'd want a job that starts with the letters Q through Z: because you need to have a job to live, and you're better off when a big chunk of the possible jobs aren't automatically barred from you in advance. Expecting someone to go to Russia to be jailed or drafted, before you'd hire them, is unreasonable.

What country are you in? Your friend has also chosen to eliminate themselves from all of the jobs in India by not moving to India and trying to get a job there, presumably. Why, if this is just a matter of increasing the possible number of jobs available, do they not do that?

Going to Russia is not inherently a requirement for having a job in government. It's only one because you or your representatives have chosen to make it one. You could say "well, having to renounce citizenship by going to Russia is so dangerous that we won't require it", you just don't.

Going to India is inherently a requirement for getting a job in India.

While both actions increase the number of jobs available, and both actions are dangerous (presumably going to India also causes him harm), in only one case is the requirement for the danger put into place by a bureaucrat standing in his way rather than by the facts of the situation. You can't object to "the real world lowers my chance of getting a job", you can object to "a bureaucrat lowers my chance of getting a job".

(If there was a bureaucrat standing in the way of getting a job in India, such as with an immigration law, we'd then have to ask if that specific bureaucratic restriction was reasonable.)

Would it be ok to ban say Christians from offices of state power? It's an easy claim that their loyalty is to God before country. And if they complain, well why do they want power so badly?

Nations are by default nationalistic and self interested. Your religion is orthogonal to your nationality.

Do I think a muslim should be allowed to be the Pope? Similarly no.

Is it? Catholics particularly were regarded as suspicious for just that reason for a long time. If you want to open that box don't be surprised at what comes out.

Do you think a Muslim should be allowed to be the pope?

I'm an atheist so as far as I am concerned, both a Muslim and the pope believe very similar fairy tales, so it would make very little difference to me. Having said that, given I am not Catholic it's not up to me. If Catholics want a Muslim pope then yes they should be allowed to do it. It's a private organization that can choose whoever it wants to be its leader. If they don't want a Muslim Pope (and I imagine they do not) then that is also entirely within their rights.

Or to put it more clearly what do you mean by "allowed"? Allowed by whom?

Allowed by the Catholics.

I, an American, would prefer if non Americans were not allowed to hold positions of power over me.

More comments

What a brilliant idea. Perhaps offices of state power should strive to resemble /r/antiwork's mod team.

I fail to see how this is a productive comment. It is inflammatory and doesn't even convey any information beyond booing an outgroup.

You have been warned for doing this sort of thing before, and the only reason I'm letting you off with a warning is because you haven't done anything particularly bad in the past few months.

I think you may be missing my point. Op posited people with with dual citizenship (due to uncertain loyalties) should not be allowed offices and if they complained it would be suspicious.

I am just pointing out that opens up vectors against any groups who might be considered to have divided loyalties. And them complaining must then also be suspicious.

I don't disagree with the idea that Christians have a dual loyalty, or a single loyalty to a non-worldly nation.

There are many ways in which being a serious Christian would be detrimental to certain functions. Just because Christian ethics were up to the last century the water of our society's fish, doesn't mean that they cannot violently clash with other ideologies that the ruling class may adopt.

These days Christian bakers get sued over their discriminatory wedding cake practices, Christian nurses get fired over their anti-abortion stance.

I don't know of any serious Christians with political aspirations, but this is essentially the tension in the far-right fringe, between those wanting an ethnostate and those wanting the kingdom of Heaven.

It just seems to me that excluding Christians from leadership positions would be shooting yourself in the foot, as it appears that Christian ethics have somehow correlated with worldly power in the last few centuries.

Perhaps some weird transhumanist society can run on reddit-moderator-tier human material and leave all the Christian baggage behind.

Having loyalties to multiple states are a special case of rival loyalties. Of course any politician is expected to be loyal to his family and his God.

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