OliveTapenade
No bio...
User ID: 1729
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
Well, the accusation that vocally social conservative people are all creepy, projecting hypocrites has a long pedigree, surely? I remember all the jokes about anti-gay pastors being caught with rentboys, or anti-porn crusaders secretly jerking it at home, and soon.
In this case I don't think it really works intellectually, but the ad clearly isn't intended to work intellectually, or even make a rational argument. The point is to create an emotional association - Trump voters are weird and creepy, and you don't want to be weird and creepy, do you? The idea is that when you're in the voting booth, you'll remember those disgusting people, and be too disgusted to put a check next to the R candidate.
It's just a low, gross attack ad. I think very little of it, but it is hardly the first of its kind.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
It reminds me of something I complained about some time ago during our Voice referendum - the idea that if you can just successfully quibble what to call something, that can somehow substitute for actually convincing people of anything.
There's obviously an extent to which words matter, and symbolism matters, but that extent is not infinite, and I suspect that if you're very good at wordsmithing, or in a language-focused industry (like journalism or much of academia or much of politics), it can be easy to overestimate the power of words, or indeed to confuse words for reality.
Thus the idea that if you can quibble what you call Kamala Harris' role at the border, that will somehow mean something. Even though I'd say it pretty clearly doesn't.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
This is definitely something I've seen in Warhamer stores in the UK - I've seen mothers come into those stories with their young sons, and the staff simultaneously try to pitch it to the young boys as something cool and exciting, and to the parents as something that's creative, healthy, and so on.
They were going for something like this - which looks lame to teenage boys, but that is definitely how you would sell Warhammer to parents.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
The problem there has always been that the line between 'politics' and 'decency' is itself a political question. Moreover, when there are conflicts between your sense of decency and my sense of decency, whose sense of basic decency should prevail?
There's a joke that goes around some of the circles I'm familiar with - "Your politics are politics. My politics are just basic human decency." In other words, the other side's politics get treated as politics, and so downgraded in importance, whereas my side's politics are so important - they're common sense, just being kind, etc. - that they must be maintained or enforced at all times.
At some point I think it's best to just skip over the meta-debate about which view is 'politics', which view is 'decency', etc., because that's ultimately just a semantic dispute, and focus instead on the actual conflict. People have different preferences when it comes to the unspoken rules of conduct in a given social space. How will we reconcile those preferences?
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
I missed anything approaching a point there.
If you want to quibble metaphors, sure, we can change metaphors. I'm not that attached. But none of that addresses the issue we've been discussing. From here, you say that you think you've been 'optimally charitable', and ask me where you've lacked sufficient charity.
In response, I point to the playground insults. You are engaging in more aggression than is necessary. Even right now, in the post I'm replying to, you're mostly just insulting me.
I do believe that "playground insults" is the level we're at now - your response to the point that you've been throwing insults around is to say "I'd almost certainly kick [Scott's] ass lmao". To put it bluntly - grow up.
You know what the light/heat and scout/soldier metaphors mean. They mean that the purpose of a forum like this supposed to be seeking understanding. Not attacking or vilifying those you hate.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
I thought that in the pugilistic, culturally-conservative right-wing world, the idea that inter-male violence is a reasonable response to attacks on one's honour was pretty commonplace?
Realistically, no, if we were in person I would not hit you. I'm too gentle by nature. But I hope you understood the point I was making, which is, incidentally, a point that you wrote eight paragraphs to avoid answering. My point was that the insults change the meaning of the statement. "You're influenced too much by the left" and "Your penis is caged by your girlfriend" are not equivalent statements. The latter is an insult - it is a deliberate and extreme provocation. Your chastity cage comment was fighting words.
I criticised you for engaging in such provocations - for lighting fires rather than shining lights.
I think that point remains true, and it's a point that you haven't replied to in favour of instead ranting for paragraphs about why you hate some imaginary stereotype of a person that you've just associated me with. Okay. Good for you. But you are still optimising for heat, rather than light; you're being a soldier, rather than a scout.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
I took the phrase "it is entirely true" to be an assertion that it is true in every particular.
But if you grant that it's just a salacious, I would say needlessly offensive or aggressive, way of saying "I believe Scott is too influenced by left-wing or social-justice-oriented thinkers", then I think that just makes my point for me. You expressed that point in a needlessly aggressive way.
"You are too influenced by socially left-wing thinkers" and "you let your girlfriend lock you in a chastity cage" are not equivalent statements, even if you mean the latter as a metaphor for the former.
Put it this way. If you told me "you're too influenced by the left", I'd respond by curiously asking what you mean, and what blind spots you think I might have. If you told me "you're a beta sissy cuck", I'd punch you in the face. Make sense?
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
Is it? By whom?
I have no idea whether or not it is literally true that Scott Alexander wears a chastity cage. Frankly I think that's an absurd thing to even discuss - there's no way it could be relevant to any argument he makes, and the norms of politeness I learned as a child were that it's rude to closely enquire into somebody else's sexual life anyway. I don't want to know what Scott Alexander's sexual fetishes are. I just don't.
At any rate, my understanding was that we were discussing cancellation, courtesy, and how much charity to show to those who disagree with us.
OliveTapenade
3mo ago
I'd argue that in the top post here you go beyond merely not being maximally charitable. You also engage in what I'd argue is childish name-calling. I won't criticise e.g. calling Scott's argument 'facile', which I think is within bounds, but how do you justify phrases like "ever since he let himself be fully chastity caged by Ozy and co."? That's a childish insult that is entirely unnecessary to the point you're actually making.
That seems to be to be more aggression than the minimum needed for truth-seeking or truth-speaking.
For what it's worth, I am in no way sympathetic to Scott's lifestyle or that of the Bay Area rationalists. You describe them as "weird Berkeley polysex people" above, and as it happens I fully agree that their lifestyles are deserving of contempt, particularly as regards so-called 'polyamory'. But when that is not germane to the point being made, I omit it.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
I haven't asserted that agreeability correlates with intelligence either. In fact, I just said that I think plausibly intelligence correlates with being contrarian.
But being contrarian, or even just disagreeableness simpliciter, is not the same thing as being a passionate culture warrior who seeks heat rather than light. I don't particularly care to discuss moderation here, particularly since, in my experience, culture and implicit norms are vastly more important than explicit rule enforcement.
Where I object to what you're saying is that I think you're defending a pugilistic, uncharitable approach to discussion, which I think is opposed to a goal like actually learning. I think a measure of charity, of good-faith curiosity and desire to understand different perspectives, is necessary for intellectual growth, and that's what I think is lacking in what you advocate.
That doesn't mean I think people should be dishonest, passive, or should feign agreement. Forthrightness is an intellectual virtue. But that is still a long way away from a Hitler-like "fire and brimstone" approach.
It may be that fire and brimstone are more persuasive - indeed, if your goal is to sway the public, they almost certainly are. In your top comment, you described Hitler as a 'great rhetorician', and indeed he was. But rhetoricians optimise for persuasiveness, rather than truth-seeking. 'Winning' in the sense of swaying more of an audience is something you may sometimes want to aim for. But here is supposed to be a place about 'winning' in the sense of learning and increasing your understanding.
That's why I think the aggressive, militant approach is wrong here. Soldier mindset, to use Galef's term, may be great for soldiers - but we're not soldiers. This is not a barracks.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
That's the rub, isn't it? Any time you make a venue to attract intelligent people founded on a certain set of principles, if you succeed, those principles will inevitably be challenged, because intelligent people (who you wanted to attract) always challenge principles and ideas. Perhaps by its original standards this place would have stayed better if it had stayed dumber, because dumb people listen and obey.
There may be a correlation between intelligence and contrarianness, but I think you're going a step beyond that and asserting a correlation between intelligence and aggression, or between intelligence and lack of charity.
I find that much more doubtful.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
Well said. I don't upvote very often, but I feel this deserved one. The purpose of the Motte was always supposed to be light rather than heat, but it is often... not the best at shedding that, and sometimes attracts posters more interested in raising the temperature. Let's bring it back down.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
I think that's fair? There's still a reasonable discussion to be had about what kind of catharsis is appropriate, but I'll grant that demanding unconditional forgiveness and generosity towards one's ideological foes can be difficult. In particular, while I hope we can all agree that an emotional, id-driven impulse towards vengeance ("they made us suffer so we must make them suffer!") is wrong, considerations of justice or even just making it psychologically possible to move on might require... a kind of penance, or amends?
If it were a war between two clear opposing parties, you could imagine conditions for that. We don't just take all your cancellations and then forgive them full stop - we may, while not cancelling in return, nonetheless ask for recompense. Reinstate or compensate unjustly-cancelled people. Offer them some kind of sincere apology. Remove previous cancellers from power and don't trust them again. All the kinds of things that you would expect from an aggressor who is defeated in a war - not just to stop, but to apologise and attempt to make it right.
That's why, for instance, the sacrament of penance and reconciliation (most often in the Catholic Church, but also more broadly) requires four things - sorrow for the fault, a firm resolution to repair its effects, sincere confession of wrongdoing, and then the sacramental penance itself. While vengeance remains wrong, there's a case for asking the wrongdoer to repair the harm as much as possible, and to demonstrate sorrow and a reformed conscience.
This is much more foggy, however, when dealing with large and vague camps like 'the left' and 'the right'. As Scott's post points out, most people who identify on the left are opposed to cancellation! Moreover, many enthusiastic cancellers as individuals seem very unlikely to recognise their wrongdoing (likewise for right-aligned cancellers) or repent. In fact, often they double-down and blame the other side even more. So there isn't a central organisation to ask for repentance, and it would be wrong to take it out on individuals who weren't involved. Perhaps the best we can hope for is for left-wing organisations to disavow cancellation as a strategy?
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
This may be ungracious, but this is another moment where I cannot help feeling that kind of centrist triumphalism all over again.
The weapon was always bad. It was bad regardless of who used it. It was bad of regardless of who it was aimed at. It was, remains, and will continue to be bad.
"It's different when we do it" was never convincing.
Incidentally, what are people's feelings on these AI article summaries? It's not a long article, and I usually try to avoid that kind of AI summary on principle - especially because it would have been quite easy to just write a summary directly. What value does the machine add?
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
Hm, I'll grant that's true. The Trump conviction did not alter my opinion of Trump in any substantial way - he was bad before and he continues to be bad. I have no very strong view on whether or not he is guilty of falsifying campaign records - that case could have gone either way and it would have made no material difference to my voting intentions, or what would be my voting intentions were I an American citizen.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
Oh, dear.
I entirely agree that Trump is bad, and that there are people on the Motte who post many terribly stupid ideas. With apologies to my fellow posters, I believe that many of you are gravely wrong on many important issues, and that in some specific cases, you are not merely wrong, but wrong in a way that strikes me as, well, stupid. Foolish. Something you should know better than.
However, the difference is that I'm not demanding consensus in a hostile and frankly rude way. Do I agree with you on the object-level issue? Yes. Why don't I act like you? A few reasons. Firstly, there's a meta-level on which I think that people are owed a measure of civility regardless of their ideas. Secondly, likewise on the meta-level, I don't come to the Motte to canvass support for my politics, and I would roundly encourage everybody else to adopt the same attitude. That's not what this place is for, so I don't come here to do it. Thirdly, insofar as I do want to effectively advocate for my politics and convince people of them, I don't believe that fierce demands like this would be effective. How do you convince dedicated Trumpists to change their minds? Not by yelling swear words at them, certainly.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
I encourage you to state your thesis more clearly.
The number of US citizens has been steadily increasing. I doubt I need to find a citation for that. US fertility is below replacement, but net positive (legal) immigration combined with long lifespans and a demographic bulge have led to the total citizen population increasing.
If turnout remains constant, then, we would expect every election to set a new record for votes cast for a presidential candidate.
(I'm aware that turnout does not remain constant, but 2020 was a high-turnout election and I expect 2024 to be as well.)
You linked a graph indicating that illegal immigration has spiked, which may well be true, but illegal immigrants by definition can't vote and don't factor into the figure we're discussing. You might argue large-scale illegal voting, but if so that seems like it would require its own evidence, not merely the existence of a significant illegal population.
In general what I'd like to ask you to do is to not bother darkly hinting at shadowy conspiracies, but rather state your questions clearly and unambiguously. The Motte isn't going to kick you out for having weird or unpopular takes. Nor do you have to be certain of something to say, "Here's what I suspect to be the case".
But repeating 'questions'? What's the point of that?
Say what they are. Be clear. Be right or be wrong, I don't care, but be clear.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
Well, as I've commented before, I understand myself to be Blue Tribe in the original sense of the term - recall that per the original 'Outgroup' post, there were explicitly Blue Tribe Republicans and Red Tribe Democrats. (Though I am not American.) I tend to think of the colour tribes as being about manner or about social milieu more than they are about explicit religious beliefs. I know I'm not Red Tribe because I grew up thinking of the kinds of people who owned guns and drove pick-up trucks and did blue-collar work and lacked university degrees and went to evangelical churches as gross low-status people that would be embarrassed to be confused with. I'm pretty sure I'm not Grey Tribe because I think the whole Silicon Valley technologist/rationalist mentality is gross. I may be a political defector from the Blue Tribe, but they're my native tongue, as it were.
Anyway, maybe it would help if I say that I think of moderation as something more procedural, rather than a substantive political position? Defined purely in terms of substance, the centre or moderate position is, as you say, a constantly shifting target which it would be absurd to invest in. Procedurally, however, I would say moderation is characterised by a willingness to listen and make deals with any of the major camps in the political landscape, while being reluctant to fully identify with any of those camps.
By the Caesarists, I'm thinking of people like the self-identified postliberals - they tend to be big fans of Orban, and supportive of some kind of strongman politics, where a visionary leader is necessary to reorder the state and effect a top-down transformation of society along more virtuous lines. Think of Patrick Deneen's aristopopulism ("Aristotelian ends by Machiavellian means"), or Vermeule's authoritarianism, or the "We need our own Putin" sentiment that was heard in 2016. Wolfean yearning for a 'Christian prince' is another version of the same idea, with the main difference being presenting itself as Protestant rather than Catholic. As a moderate, I am dispositionally skeptical of any political project that starts with the idea that we just need to get our guy into power and then crush our enemies. This is as true for the right-authoritarian-populists as it is for the left-authoritarian-populists.
Personally, my preferred politics is more the idea that virtue, community-building, pro-social behaviour, etc., are embedded in customs and the unspoken, unwritten rules of local community life more than they are in legal codes, and there's something inherently dangerous in the yearning for a powerful centralised authority that will authoritatively enforce our moral vision on all. I think we need is closer to the project Deneen sketches at the end of Why Liberalism Failed (i.e. small, local self-governing communities, rooted in the concrete realities of their lives), rather than the strongman fantasies of Regime Change. To that end what I favour is a limited, constrained central government that focuses, rather than on setting the conditions for the good life itself, making possible (but not mandatory) the kind of organic civic renewal that I hope for. Think more distributist-libertarian, on the political spectrum.
I think this probably sits well with a kind of old-fashioned liberal ethic, but it means that I take liberalism per se to be necessary but not sufficient for a healthy polity.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
I... at no point said that I default to the centre of the Overton Window on any issue, or that centrists should do that? Dynomight actually made a case for moderation as the best way to achieve change - he makes the argument, I think correctly, that gay marriage won via moderation, not via radicalism.
As it happens, I oppose gay marriage, which the last I checked puts me way outside the Overton Window. Moderation or centrism in the sense in which I am identifying with it is not a list of policy positions, or a reflexive determination to always adopt the position exactly halfway between the Republican and Democratic platforms. It is a dispositional skepticism of passion politics and radicalism, a deliberate openness to the possibility of being persuaded by people on either team, and an attitude of caution and intellectual humility.
What does it mean to be a moderate and oppose gay marriage? It means that I think it's bad policy, but also that I think that, say, the postliberal Caesarist types are dangerous rogues. Or to pick something coded the other side of politics, it's the same way I can support, say, universal health care, but think that the democratic socialists are a bunch of ineffective muppets high on their own supply. It means a distinction between the policies I envision happening in an ideal world, and the practical ways in which I approach doing politics.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
I'm happy to grant that Burkean conservatism is one of the things I'm describing when I praise centrism or moderation, yes.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
I'm not defining 'centrism' here as 'the axiomatic assumption that the correct position is always in the centre of the Overton window'. I don't think that's unfairly redefining it on the fly? We probably wouldn't define leftism or rightism as the axiomatic belief that the correct position is always the furthest left or furthest right idea. Rather, we understand these words to refer to general tendencies or ideological leans. We also tend to associate them with specific embodied tribes (e.g. Democrats, Republicans), or with specific ideologies, which are often more complex than can be expressed with a binary spectrum (e.g. socialism, liberalism, conservatism).
So let me say what I mean when I say that I consider myself a centrist or moderate. (I don't feel it's particularly worth hair-splitting between those two terms. I think they both successfully communicate the idea of someone who is skeptical of both the left and the right, but willing to listen to and adopt ideas from either.)
Firstly, and this is what I think I alluded to most clearly in the above, I mean a dispositional skepticism towards enthusiasm or radicalism. I adopt a posture that is skeptical of passion in politics, or people who are deeply invested in an organised political vision. It is a posture that favours pragmatic, incremental reforms, and tends to regard big intellectual theories or visions as inherently suspect. There is a sense in which this is just small-c conservatism, and I'll wear that, but I think that as in practice the word 'conservative' in politics means something different, it's reasonable to avoid it.
Secondly, I mean in terms of practical allegiance and identification, sitting somewhere in between the two dominant tribes. American politics are radically polarised, and for most people adopting positions has more to do with team loyalty than anything else. Feelings of affection for one team and hostility to the other are therefore the dominant force in American politics. By identifying as centrist or moderate, what I want to communicate is that that's not what I want to do. Rather, I am trying to signal openness to a range of perspectives, and an attitude of noncommittal friendliness to people in either tribe.
Thirdly, to the extent that there is an ideology of moderation, I think it's the conscious knowledge that passion tends to outrun reason; that human judgement is fallible and that my internal sense of my own correctness is probably flawed; that good decision-making often requires input from different perspectives, even adversaries, and collaboration; that personal restraint and humility are virtues; and that no idea or proposal should be allowed to pass without a proper attempt to criticise it.
This piece makes a lot of the same case. Irrespective of any particular issue (some of which I do skew more conservative on than that guy), there is a case for moderation as political practice as well as moderation is ideological or attitudinal stance.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
That's fair - I admit I'm indulging in a bit of backslapping here. I suppose it's a bit foolish of me. Still, every now and then taking a moment to feel positive about one's self and perspective isn't that much of a sin, I hope.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
That is one of the satisfactions of being a centrist or moderate, yes. We may not get to enjoy the extremes of partisan frenzy, but the enthusiasm of the moment burns out, and the radical ends of the spectrum overextend and end up looking like fools, we're the ones left to nod knowingly and pick up the pieces.
I realise this comes off as rather smug, and maybe isn't that constructive, but I think there is some value in occasionally reminding ourselves of the merits of even the 'boring', conventional positions. "Actually Political Violence Bad" is not a position that's going to excite anyone, but it has repeatedly proven itself, and those who stuck to it even when it would have been easy to come off as edgy or cool by doing otherwise may deserve some praise for their restraint.
Not from me, probably, because I shouldn't praise my own group, but I'd argue that knowing when not to speak, when not to act, is a kind of virtue in itself.
To that I'd add the ability to condemn two things at once. There's always a strong temptation for partisans of one side or the other to say "but it's different when we do it". BLM riots bad, January 6 good. Cancelling the left bad, cancelling the right good. Extrajudicial violence bad for them, but good for us. But if you're in the centre and you're devoted to having principles... just say that it's all bad. Make no excuses. What they must not do, we must not do either. What we may do, they may do as well.
OliveTapenade
4mo ago
I'm not sure I understand this point - Vance also despised Trump at the start of his presidency.
From where I'm standing, both Vance and Carlson seem to fundamentally be opportunists, flexible seekers of power and influence who are willing to reinvent themselves, to re-cultivate their public personas, to suit changing times. In this specific case, they both shifted populist as the Republican centre-of-gravity moved.
I agree that Carlson's stated political views are probably insincere, or at least, a mixture of sincere-if-vague conviction with tactically shifting to match the equally shifting and inchoate views of his audience. But I doubt Vance is much different either.
If anything, I wonder if the ad and its implications are actually playing a game that the right has mastered first?
"The other side are disgusting and sexually depraved and ugly and want to prey on you" is a card that the right has played many times, surely?
More options
Context Copy link