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.

Man the plot armour on Trump is insane. If the shooter had aimed just a few arcseconds away we'd have a dead Trump right now.

Photo of the/a bullet literally midair

It would be probably be the worst national crisis since 911 . It would not have as serious economic consequences of covid or 911 but it would be bad in ways that are hard to know because they would be unprecedented

Not quite unprecedented. Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed on the campaign trail just after winning a huge tranche of votes that likely would have given him the nomination. Also, I don't quite remember if he was the favorite to win, but given how the actual election between Kennedy's replacement Humphries was razor-close on election day and rated a toss-up against Nixon, his chances were good as I think most people thought Kennedy would be a much stronger candidate. So at least in that sense we've been through this before.

In practical terms however, yes, would be an absolute massive shockwave.

Trump turned his head likely just as the shooter popped his shot. It'd have clipped the back of his skull and if it was an XM15 the traumatic impact would blow apart his brain. Insanely lucky.

Can't trust Gen Z to do anything right.

Which candidate would the Republicans have pushed if Trump was killed?

Haley or Rubio.

Haley is hated by maga base. It would’ve been seen as an establishment plot. No way she would’ve been the nominee.

Given the current leadership of the RNC I think it would go to Don Jr if he wanted it, which I think he probably would.

There's no way career politicians with actual experience running campaigns would allow it to go to Don Jr. without a fight. Haley has pledged delegates who would see there chance. Whoever the VP pick was would argue that he gets Trump's delegates. Desantis would see his chance and argue he was more popular than either of them. On the other hand, if the RNC pushes one of the above three it will be harder for the other two to argue against them. There still might be a power struggle, but it wouldn't be as public.

Haley might try and fail, but Desantis I imagine has more political sense than do that; going against a popular figure like Trump (and by association his family) damages a Republican's brand. Jeb is a joke and a non-entity now. Rubio had to go into hiding for years to recover. The Cheney name is dirty now. Haley might have destroyed her political future. Desantis probably gave up on the primary just in time not to damage himself for 2028.

I think too inexperienced to take the convention, but I could see him cutting a deal for the VP slot.

Is he any less experienced (politically) than Trump was when he ran for the first time?

agree. when has experience ever been a major deciding factor? Palin anyone?

Politically he's probably more experienced, but in terms of executive experience, it's all been working for his father.

Do you think so? He is inexperienced. That said the memetic force would be very strong to push him through.

The only way it wouldn’t be Don Jr is if Don Jr (and the rest of the family) endorsed whoever it ultimately ended up being, since without the family the Republican candidate would probably lose due to infighting, people voting RFK Jr because of ‘crony’ RINOs taking over Trump’s legacy etc. Don Jr seems to have political connections and if they run someone else he’s finished, because in 8 years a) a Democrat would probably win again anyway and b) the Trump family would be largely forgotten, especially without the patriarch.

JD Vance is buddies with Don Jr, is quite possibly the VP nominee, and has the requisite style and experience. I would have bet on him if this had been successful.

It could be Vance, but I think if it was Vance there would be a lot of competition from within the party. If it was Don Jr I think there would be mostly deference outside the moderate business con wing, and even there I think they’d eventually accept it.

Don Jr vs Jared Kushner. That'll be the best.

Jared is happy with the Arabs giving him money, and I can see President Don Jr continuing to let him and Ivanka be in charge of Middle East policy (and thus profit from it). I don’t think either Jared or Ivanka will succeed Trump politically.

Kushner is too pro Israel and is on the nose.

Nothing about Kushner’s behavior over the last few years suggests he wants to be president. I think he might agree to Ivanka running, but she doesn’t want it either.

Pence? Haley? DeSantis? Donald Jr?

DeSantis seems like the obvious choice. He was in second place for most of the primary, and there isn't much time left to build up name recognition. He's also basically Trump lite. I think he could easily coast to victory on the outrage over the murder of a Presidential candidate.

And he was the second choice for many Trump voters. But who knows.

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