site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37969 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 8, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

At the same time, Trump is only leading by an average of three points, and he beat Clinton when she was only ahead by four.

While polling errors of that size are entirely plausible, it's worth noting that Trump's structural advantage in the electoral college is non-trivial. If he leads by 3 in the national polls come November, Trump is very likely to win. Realistically, Biden needs to be in the positive column in the national popular vote to have a good chance in the six key swing states.

Still the chances of Trump going till November from here without some sort of scandal either emerging or being manufactured are essentially nil

Will a scandal actually hurt Trump at this point? Anyone who's actually willing to vote for him doesn't care how many times he went to Epstein Island.

Because the answer is zero

Yeah, there's not much they can pull. Politically incorrect language? Baked in. Rape claims from decades ago? Baked in. Shady deals? Baked in. Conspiring with Russia? Who considering voting for him would believe it this time?

Sure, variance is baked into the cake of any reasonable projection this far out. I don't think that's any more likely than something absolutely insane occurring with the sundowner on the other end of things though.

It's too confusing anymore. People I talk to literally think the SCOTUS overturned his conviction because the prosecutor was fucking the judge.

They've been reading ahead to next session.

Don't you put that evil on me, nybs. If we have to hear about a THIRD disgusting love affair in the process of these cases...

I have no problem taking the other side for 2 reasons.

  1. He’s gotten smarter
  2. Narratives don’t stick like they use to. Some of this is Musks buying twitter so the algos can be cranked up for this is stupid. The other is too much has been exposed and I think to the median voter at a minimum narratives won’t be assumed but questioned. We just saw the coverup of does Biden have dementia exposed on national tv. The benefit of the doubt is going to Trump and they are going to need actual video of a Russian hooker pissing on Trump.

He’s gotten smarter

Scuttlebutt has it that his campaign discipline is due to his co-campaign manager Suzie Wiles; an accomplished politico who used to be a big DeSantis booster until he alienated her in 2023 at which time she switched to Trump.

He’s also Trump. He’s definitely burnt people before. Maybe grifter types (Cohen, Scarsmucci). I don’t think he was great at listening to people. Even if she’s very good he has also realized he needs that person.

Going by Nate Silver's model, Biden needs something like +2% in the national polls to have a 50% chance of winning the electoral college. Trump being up by 3% in the polls on Election Day gives a ~99.9% chance that he wins the election.

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