site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28379 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 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.

First, there shouldn't need to be a quid pro quo for initiatives that are just generally good for the country, which Ukraine aid is. We're providing assistance, building up our own withered defense-industrial base for a potential future hot conflict against China, and inflicting losses on an ally of China who has very explicitly stated anti-American and anti-Western views. FDR didn't need to give Republicans a bunch of concessions to fight WW2.

Second, Biden was willing to give concessions on immigration by signing the most conservative immigration bill in a generation, something Republicans were on board with until it looked like it could actually pass, then Trump sabotaged the agreement.

Russian propaganda isn't the only reason why Republicans dislike Ukraine aid, but it's certainly a part of it. I've debated the Ukraine issue a lot, and Russian arguments like "James Baker pinky-promised not to expand NATO eastward" have been prominent, even on this very forum.

First, there shouldn't need to be a quid pro quo for initiatives that are just generally good for the country

That's a fine marketing pitch but terrible game theory.

Biden was willing to give concessions on immigration by signing the most conservative immigration bill in a generation, something Republicans were on board with

Explicitly allowing 5,000 illegals per day is neither a concession nor conservative. The fact that Republicans were on board with that even for a second is just evidence that the Republican Party is useless and not conservative.

The 5000 number is a ceiling, not a floor. It's the maximum before the law triggers and allows the president to use additional measures to reduce illegal crossings. There is currently no cap at all, so the 5000 number, while still being higher than it should be, is massively lower than the status quo.

"Allows the president" is the problem here. There's no reason to believe Biden would do anything at all. The concession is fake.

How about zero? The “cap” means nothing. Why not “cap” murders, assaults, or burglaries? Enforce the damn law.

I believe the trigger was put in place to avoid capricious use of the new law, so it could only be used when migration surges happen? I'm not entirely sure. In any case, the main point of the law is to avoid the normal due process that asylum claimants would receive. There currently isn't a law that says people can just be deported without the normal judicial process, so you asking for them to "enforce the damn law" is implicitly asking for something that doesn't exist in the status quo.

Once the federal government starts aggressively deporting anyone not appearing in court, not submitting their (almost unanimously bullshit) asylum claims on time, or committing other crimes I may believe their stated motivations. Until then I will assume that any “bipartisan” legislation is just more words with which to wage lawfare against US citizens.

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