site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27864 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No president would get re-elected in an environment of high inflation after trust in institutions was permanently lost after footage of them transparently lying to justify losing their nutty over the chink virus.

losing their nutty over the chink virus

This is unnecessary.

Thanks for telling us all you got vaccinated, smart move

  • -16

You've been spamming threads with these kinds of snide remarks, and the last time you did this you ended up getting banned and told to knock it off. Once again I am telling you to knock it off, and banning you for three days. If you have a point to make, make it clearly and directly. Stop attacking people (not just me, you've been attacking people almost at random for the past couple of days). Your contributions so far seem to be nothing but low effort and obnoxious. Keep it up and you will be permabanned.

If you have a point to make, make it clearly and directly

How could I have possibly been more clear or direct

No president would get re-elected in an environment of high inflation after trust in institutions was permanently lost after footage of them transparently lying to justify losing their nutty over the chink virus.

Sure they can. If nothing else, you can just make up election results saying they won from whole cloth, declare those "the official result" and punish any "election denier" who dares to claim those numbers are anything but 100% true and accurate.

But, like @The_Nybbler says below, you almost certainly don't need to go that far. Just use control of the media and the institutions to ensure enough of the peasant masses are marinaded solely in your official narrative, and enough of them will go along. Particularly if the other candidate is currently rotting in a cell somewhere.

Unless of course the media keeps telling people there's no inflation, to trust in the institutions, and never mind about Fauci's lies, COVID is so 2020, we've moved on. Which of course is exactly where we are.

People don’t believe the media to nearly the same extent as they did pre-2020.

I'm not sure this is true. It's just that believe different media.

to nearly the same extent as they did pre-2020.

Yes, but even though that belief is smaller, there's still enough to get Biden through, particularly given all the ovine Boomer Republicans who aren't going to vote for "a convicted felon".

Curious if that’s actually a large constituency and not just a handful of columnists.

and not just a handful of columnists.

I'm talking about people I know personally, fellow Alaskans, who acted similarly in the Ted Stevens case — including one person who argues that if you vote for "a convicted felon" God will literally damn you to hell for it.

You're predicting Trump loses Alaska?

Given how the elections here in Anchorage (~39% of the state's population) just went, how Blue this city has become, how Lisa Murkowski keeps getting reelected, our replacement for the late Don Young…

…well, I won't say it's by any means certain, it's far from impossible.

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