site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   28601 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 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.

Kimberly Guilfoyle

Oh wow. I didn't know that. So Gavin Newsom's ex is engaged to Donald Trump Jr.

That's a spicy meatball indeed.

From Guilfoyle’s Wikipedia page:

In December 2001, Guilfoyle married politician Gavin Newsom, then a San Francisco city supervisor. Newsom was elected mayor of San Francisco in 2003. While married to Newsom, she used the name Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom. The couple appeared in the September 2004 issue of Harper's Bazaar ; the spread had them posed at the Getty Villa, and they were referred to in the title as the "New Kennedys".[49] In January 2005, citing the strain of a bicoastal marriage, Guilfoyle and Newsom jointly filed for divorce.[50] Their divorce was final on February 28, 2006.[51] It later emerged that Newsom, then 39, was having an affair with Ruby Rippey-Tourk, the wife of his then-campaign manager and former deputy chief of staff, Alex Tourk.[52] It is unclear if Guilfoyle knew about the affair before the scandal broke in 2007.[52]

On May 27, 2006, in Barbados, Guilfoyle married furniture heir Eric Villency.[53] On October 4, 2006, Guilfoyle gave birth to their son.[54] Guilfoyle and Villency divorced in November 2009.[55] In June 2018, Vanessa Trump, who had filed for divorce from Donald Trump Jr. three months earlier, confirmed that Guilfoyle was dating Donald Trump Jr.[56]

10-8 Newsom, Trump. From Newsom's current wife's Wikipedia page:

Siebel Newsom was one of several accusers against Harvey Weinstein in his 2022 Los Angeles criminal rape and sexual assault trial.[32] In November 2022, Siebel Newsom testified in court that, in 2005, Weinstein had raped her in a hotel room, having lured her there under the pretenses of holding a professional discussion about film projects.[33] Weinstein's attorney claimed what took place was "consensual, transactional sex".[34] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on Newsom's accusation and that of one of his other accusers. A mistrial was declared on those charges.

Weinstein hit it first. 10-9 Weinstein, Newsom. It'd be easily 10-8 if not for the possible ambiguity as to what took place. #BelieveWomen charity operating on overdrive.

There's also footage of Newsom playing basketball in China with some schoolchildren. Newsome was a bit reckless, lost his dribble and charged into a boy who had his feet set, followed up with some friendly butt-slaps upon the boy (you know, as one does, when trying to recover from an awkward situation where you just plowed over an eight or so year-old).

10-9 random Chinese boy, Newsom.

I can only conclude that Weinstein ~= random Chinese boy > Newsom >> Trump Jr.

However, more seriously, I think Newsom would be a pretty good candidate. To the extent that's he's merely a "replacement-level" candidate for the Democratic Party, that could be a feature rather than a bug. Biden was mostly just there as a non-offensive candidate (from the Democrat perspective) and to be Not Trump; Newsom could do that but better.

He looks young compared to Trump and Biden (because he is, relatively-speaking) and is tall, has a good haircut, and has good teeth. For better or worse, those are quite important criteria.

I don't see him losing support relative to Biden when it comes to women. If anything, for aforementioned reasons, Newsome would do better; his tabloid-worthy history when it comes to banging younger women only benefits him. I also don't see him being less appealing to blacks or latinos, either, compared to Biden. Perhaps even more appealing.

The photoshoot makes it even better

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