site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   37743 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.

Guiteau had been a Democrat when you needed to be a Democrat to be an effective lawyer in Tammany Hall era New York, but he was a Republican (and, indeed, at least in his own head a Garfield campaign activist) at the time he shot Garfield.

Czolgosz was an anarchist, which strongly suggests he wasn't a Democrat given that anarchists hated all non-anarchist political movements including other left-wing ones.

So you are 1 for 3 on basic accuracy here.

I'm at least two for three on basic accuracy as you yourself have conceded that Guiteau was a Democrat. The only point of of contention is on whether radical anarchists code more "right" than "left". For my part i think radical anarchists code more left-wing/progressive than they do right-wing or conservative. Would you like to argue otherwise?

For my part i think radical anarchists code more left-wing/progressive than they do right-wing or conservative. Would you like to argue otherwise?

You didn't say that the three Republican Presidents were shot by leftists (which would also have been wrong, as neither Booth nor Guiteau was a leftist), you said that they were shot by Democrats. Leftist~=Democrat doesn't isn't even mostly true until the New Deal (the capital-P Progressives preferred to work as a faction in the Republican party) and isn't consistently true until the Reagan administration.

This response is totally braindead. Guiteau had been a Democrat at one point, but then switched to being a Republican, which is what he was when he assassinated Garfield.

As for your dissembling about Czolgosz, it’s clear that you’ve moved the goalposts immediately upon being corrected. Your explicit claim was “Democrats”, not “left-wingers.” You explicitly made a partisan claim - linking the phenomenon to specific political parties - and are now flailing to make it look like you were making an ideological claim.

(A claim which still doesn’t make sense, because the policy-position split between Democrats and Republicans during the era when both Garfield and McKinley were shot does not at all map onto modern ideas of “left” versus “right”. Was Garfield to the left or to the right of Winfield Scott Hancock, his Democrat opponent in the 1880 election? Who knows? The question doesn’t make sense.)

You accuse me of being "braindead" but...

For my part i think radical anarchists code more left-wing/progressive than they do right-wing or conservative. Would you like to argue otherwise?

In no sense does this address any of the criticisms I’ve leveled against your post. Nobody has argued that Leon Czolgosz, anarcho-communist, was not left-wing. The problem is that, again, your original post called him a “Democrat”. That’s what you said. Not whatever you’re now pretending you said instead.

I think it does and that you are taking refuge in pedantics to avoid the plain truth of my statement.

Your statement isn’t true, though! Are you suggesting that John Wilkes Booth was a left-winger? If not, then your attempt to insinuate that all of the presidential assassins were left-wingers plainly fails. (And again, it fails doubly because Charles Guiteau had few if any identifiably “left-wing” beliefs.)

Or, if you want to instead claim, as you originally did, that all of the presidential assassins have been members of the Democratic Party, you are then stuck explaining why Leon Czolgosz had literally zero affiliation with the party and does not seem to have ever voted for them, as well as why Guiteau was not only a registered Republican but also an active campaigner for the Republican presidential candidate, who hoped to receive an appointed position in a Republican administration.

Overall, your post was a disjointed mess full of easily-refutable claims, and your attempts to rescue it have contained even more lies and dodging. There is no identifiable ideological or partisan pattern when it comes to the men who have successfully carried out executions of American presidents, and your attempt to conjure one out of thin air abjectly failed.

Are you suggesting that John Wilkes Booth was a left-winger?

I'm flat out saying that he was a Democrat and merely suggesting that he was a left-winger.

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