site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   37982 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.

What's Biden's survival path?

Nothing happens? Under current DNC rules Biden is the guy that 90+% of delegates are pledged to vote for and will win, absent some change in DNC rules. For Biden to not be the nominee the status quo needs to change in some way. There are 10 days left until the virtual nomination so if something is going to happen to get rid of Biden it needs to happen soon.

Easy. Dems invoke the 25th. He can’t survive that.

Dems wouldn't survive that either. It could destroy the party.

Ironically, he could in theory:

  1. assuming the VP and executive branch heads declare POTUS incompetent,
  2. POTUS can simply transmit to Congress that he is in fact competent
  3. VP and executive branch heads now have to reassure Congress that POTUS is in fact incompetent
  4. Congress now gets to decide the issue. They have to declare by a majority that POTUS is in fact incompetent
  5. Hilariously they might not (Republicans have majority in the house and might prefer Biden running)
  6. if POTUS retains seat, all the cabinet heads might roll at this point (which does create some liability for cabinet members at steps 1 and 3).

At least, this is my read of the 25th, but it's past my kid's bedtime, so I might be missing something.

Republicans can’t declare Biden competent and survive politically. I’d guess the house declares Biden incompetent and there’s drama in the senate, clear majority for removal but getting to two thirds might be a stretch.

I think they could: everyone would know that it was about winning the election in 2020, so their base would think it was hilarious. "You ordered it, you eat it" etc.

But who knows. The next-level play on their part in this situation would probably be to try to stall the entire thing until POTUS is irreversibly on the ballot and then go for removal. Right now I don't think they could stall that long on the 25th but give it another 30 days and it looks like they would be able to do some damage that way.

They can vote "present" and make the Democrats get a supermajority on their own.

Republicans can do anything and survive politically. We've seen it fifteen times in the last ten years.

Yes there is a constitution to adhere to etc etc. But when your own party says “you aren’t mentally fit” no way you can win an election.

I'd add to your number 4 that it's not just a majority that has to find him incompetent -- it's a 2/3 supermajority in both houses, a stricter requirement than impeachment. If he needs to go and he won't choose to go, the easier path is to impeach and remove him that way -- no need for cabinet drama.

But I also posted my own take on the 25th idea in a subthread but it got buried. Here's my take:

Invoking the 25th would make Democrats look weak and their administration look incompetent. Because it would be a declaration that its headman is incompetent, in the literal meaning of the term. Invoking the 25th also normally requires the consent of the President -- that's the only way it has been used in the past -- and to do it over his refusal would require a whole rigamarole where the Cabinet tries to argue with the Congress and Biden attempts to convince them he's actually competent.

It would be an absolute shitshow of constitutional and political maneuvering that would make even the most insane Brexit deliberations across the pond look like normal legislative operations, with the executive fighting against itself and the Congress held up from all other activity while members get prime time TV slots grandstanding about the administration. In the worst case, this would lead to the nuclear football being tossed back and forth between Biden and Harris like an actual football.

If they have Biden's consent, he can just do the normal, expected thing and resign. Which would also put Harris at the top of the ticket, but at least without the insane constitutional boogaloo that the 25th Amendment process would require. But the 25th Amendment process is pretty involved, to prevent coups. Harris can't just up and declare herself the Big Cheese.

The 25th invocation suggestions aren't a serious threat to Biden.

Republicans voting Biden as competent would be an excellent news cycle (for dramacoin).

We are exercising all these dusty parts of the constitution, maybe we can have a convention in my lifetime.

Yeah, I really don't understand what all the discussion about Biden somehow being removed from the ticket is coming from. It can't happen. The rules are designed to make that impossible. Are the Democratic leaders/influencers calling for it trying to set themselves up to appeal to a hypothetical future nominee for 2028? Biden's already made it clear he won't step down voluntarily.

If the Democratic party loses in November, he's going down with the ship. And I guess we'll find Harris laying on a door frame in the middle of the ocean.

The rules of the Democrat Party are just made up - they're not the Constitution or even the law.

The only thing actually constraining them is deadlines to get on the ballot. But in the past, states have been quite generous about accommodating the two big parties.

At the end of the day in politics, the rules are more like guidelines, unless there's an army enforcing them.

At the end of the day in politics, the rules are more like guidelines, unless there's an army enforcing them.

In 2002 the NJ Senate race had passed the nomination deadline, when incumbent Senator Torricelli was headed for a certain loss following corruption charges. The Democrats asked the New Jersey Supreme Court if they could pretty please have an exception made and the court declared an "emergency resignation exception." The Democrats replaced Torricelli on the ballot with the recently retired Senator Frank Lautenberg, who won by almost 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lautenberg#2002_election

You can think of the rule-change commentariat as the IQ bell curve meme, where the stupid and the super-intelligent both approach the same conclusion while the median/normie takes the 'smarter' route that is itself implicitly not as smart as the high-IQ side.

The low-IQ end of the bell curve is the 'we have to try' commentariat, who think they need to change the candidate to win but don't realize that they don't have the mechanisms to actually do it.

The median-IQ majority is the gritting-teeth-and-crying face crowd, which know they can't change and so have to make do with Biden and are trying to urge everyone to get in line.

The high-IQ end of the bell curve is the 'we have to appear as if we're trying' maneuvers, who know that changing the candidate is impossible but are also positioning to survive the fallout when the median-IQ enablers get stuck with the blame for standing by Biden.

There's a degree of conformist-shock in the commentariat rebellion, but there's also some indications that some elements of the Democratic party as thinking much more in terms of the aftermath. Obama, for example, is very much setting himself on both sides: publicly staying on brand vocally supporting Biden, which will be remembered if Biden wins, but also implicitly endorsing (by not pushing back against) personally screened media articles calling on Biden to resign. If Biden wins, he always spoke in Biden's favor, and if Biden loses, he was not an enabler and supported the Right Side trying to raise concerns.

Now adopt that framing to other actors. One way or another, there are about to be a lot of losers from the current party-rebellion, and people aren't just taking stances on Biden for the election in and of itself, but for how it will reflect in the fallout. If, for example, Biden were to win, you can rest assured he'll take revenge on various party members who denounced him. But if he loses, people who denounced him will have significant ammo on the people who were loyal.

What we're seeing now is a lot of future positioning, as people try and angle to alternatively cover their basis, or double-down on one side or another. The 'Biden must be replaced' crowd- whether Biden is actually replaced or not- is part of a stance on which wing(s) of the party will rise or fall after this election.

Its interesting, because when you brought up the IQ meme I thought you would do the total opposite with it. So probably it doesn't apply here.

Yeah, I was expecting it to go more like this:

Low: wants Biden replaced, not knowing the rules prevent it

Mid: must support Biden because the rules prevent replacing him

High: wants Biden replaced, because rules are made by man and can be changed if extreme circumstances require it

Simply added a higher-high, of supporting Biden because the Biden will win the inner-party power struggle regardless and target the high for retaliation regardless of overall election results.

Your framing is assuming that the priority is winning the presidential election, as opposed to control of the Democratic Party.

if Biden looses

*loses

Good point on some of the pressures facing the people involved.

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