site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   28025 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.

That’s because the type of republican that would theoretically have their mind changed by this barely exist anymore, and are almost entirely artificially signal boosted by anti-trump democrats and their supporters.

People keep bringing up Ted Stevens, but that was 15 years ago, and he was and a very long 15 years. With all that’s happened between then and now the political scene is almost unrecognizable.

I think there’s a blind spot of some of the old guard rightists, on this board, “establishment” republicans have been almost completely gutted by both trump and a vote base that shifted underneath their feet. A lot of people are either too blackpilled or too hidebound to see it, even years after Trump left office.

National review has basically said this is BS (but Trump did himself no favor with bad legal counsel). That is what establishment republicans think.

National review has basically said this is BS (but Trump did himself no favor with bad legal counsel). That is what establishment republicans think.

I'm essentially a NR republican of the Jonah Goldberg Remnant variety. I am anti-Trump in that I think he is cultural poison and I will(have) never vote(d) for him. I agree completely with the NR consensus on this.

The problem with the "This will kill Trump" viewpoint is that it sees Trump in a vacuum, as a uniquely corrupt outlier. My view is that is he is the "naked" exampled of the corruption already pervasive in elite politics. Everything he does or tries to do or wants to do is completely routine and no more dirty than what the Bidens/Clintons/Pelosis have been doing for decades. And probably the Bushes, Obamas, etc.

The difference that Trump offers is that he is simultanously pettier/dumber/incompetent at everything he does AND he has none of the friendly institutional cover afforded to the elite club and their competent lawyers and knowlegable operatives. They have a system that they know how to navigate, litigate and obfuscate, and Trump doesn't know that he needs to know how to work that system to succeed.

So, when the proposition comes up: Does this change your opinion of Trump? The answer to even mainstream Republicans is, "This makes no difference, because the other guys are just as bad, and maybe worse because they're good at being that bad and getting away with it."

If Trump going down is the draino that unclogs the swamp and he takes them all down, this maybe isn't so bad. If he's the only one who makes it through the drain, this is a sort of travesty of selective justice.

I actually think Trump is less bad compared to the Clinton, Bushes, etc. He is also more vulgar and doesn’t “hide it” as well.

But think of how many relatively poor people go into politics and leave crazy wealthy.

National review has basically said this is BS (but Trump did himself no favor with bad legal counsel)

Nothing before the "but" matters.

The Wall Street Journal thinks everything is fine.

[Trump] adding, “I don’t know if Biden knows too much about it because I don’t know if he knows about anything.” There is no evidence that the Biden administration was involved in New York prosecutors’ decision to charge Trump in the case.

Emphasis mine. Not only is this blatant editorializing in a news story by the Wall Street Journal, it's blatantly false, because the involvement of a former Biden DOJ official is evidence.

Ehh the focus has been very heavily on “this is wrong” and not “Trump’s atty did a bad job.”

The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.

The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.The WSJ piece is from their news section which is quite progressive. The opinion section is not forgiving this show trial.

Headline from the WSJ opinion section: "Trump Was Convicted by a Jury, Not by His Political Enemies".

Trump said, without evidence, that President Biden was responsible for his conviction, saying “this was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt an opponent.” Trump also implied, again without evidence, that evil big-money men are out to get him, describing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as a “Soros-backed D.A.” And he claimed that trial judge Juan Merchan was unfair, calling him “a conflicted judge who should have never been allowed to try this case.”

But it was 12 ordinary citizens, not Biden, Soros or Merchan, who unanimously pronounced Trump guilty on 34 felony counts. In fact, the Trump trial shows why juries have long been considered an important anti-corruption device. A sitting judge—one person, known to future litigants long in advance—is in theory easy enough to bribe. But does Trump mean to imply that all 12 of the jurors, none of whom was known in advance, were paid off by Biden or Soros? How? A judge might be tempted to kiss the hand of the state government that feeds him or, in the case of a federal judge, the president who nominated her in the past and might promote her in the future. Not so a jury.

(there is, in fact, evidence that the Biden administration was involved, and certainly evidence that people were out to get him, given that the NY AG ran on that as a campaign promise. But none of that matters, the holy jury has spoken)

I stand corrected. That’s an awful take.

That doesn’t surprise me even a little that they would say that, but I think it’s telling that National Review has never been less important or influential than it is now.

Like Rolling Stone magazine for the conservative movement. How the mighty have fallen.

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