site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29967 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They had party discipline. Party discipline said not to admit to Biden's weakness. What they lacked is the ironclad control over public perception that they thought (not without good reason!) they had.

Basically, they thought they could Jedi Mind Trick the entire world into thinking they did not just see a clearly, obviously senile POTUS.

I don’t know why they didn’t just refuse to participate in the debates. Say Biden already debated Trump many times, and that Trump’s ‘a clown whose ungentlemanly conduct makes respectful debate impossible’. Obviously still looks weak, but most of the public would ignore it, on the day they’re not thinking “I haven’t heard from Joe in a while”.

Because they were the ones who wanted the debates. You're after-the-fact rationalizing that participating in the debates was an obviously wrong decision that everyone could see in advance, when two weeks ago before the debate everyone could 'clearly' see that Biden could expect to do reasonably.

Biden didn't just refuse to participate in the debates because he was the one who needed them to shake up a contest he was gradually losing. Trump approached from the position of having a consistent and enduring lead he could stand to lose; Biden was the one approaching from a position of having a consistent and enduring trail that would lead to loss if not changed.

To bring a card game metaphor: Biden had to make a bigger gamble because he was behind and couldn't count on average scoring to pull him ahead. The fact that the gamble failed, doesn't mean the game wasn't appropriate.

I don't know why we're discounting the possibility that the decision was made by Biden personally, and Biden is either in denial about his condition or otherwise not a rational actor.

I think they tried to do it in a way that saved face, by demanding a bunch of conditions that they didn't think Trump would agree to. But he called their bluff, and they were stuck.

They miscalculated. Either they thought the terms they offered for debate (e.g. cutting off mics) would get Trump to refuse, or they thought their candidate would make it through, either because they were mistaken/fooling themselves as to how bad off he was, or because he wasn't as bad when they made the agreeement.

The simplest answer is that Biden's the one making that decision and he thinks he's as sharp as he's ever been. Im sure he also thinks he won the debate and the current panic is all down to a hostile media environment.

After watching his post-debate interview with Stephanopoulos, I think you're right. Biden genuinely believes all his bad poll numbers are wrong/biased and his true level of public support is much higher.

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