site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   38814 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 15, 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.

Trump shooting really should have been Biden's deliverance. If they're still pressuring despite that, hard to see him clinging on.

I still don't see the mechanism for turning "people saying Biden should drop out" into "Biden drops out". He's clearly intending to hang on and run the clock out till the convention. More people telling him not to do that is going to change what?

It's a convention challenge or a 25th amendment scenario, those are the options. No one is even hinting at them. So he stays.

I feel the continuing push from the party has to be indicative of somebody thinking there's a vulnerability there.

I don't think so. I think politicians say stuff with no intention or ability to actually change things all the freaking time.

It probably shows that more and more Democrats are making the calculation that it's better for their personal position to call for him to drop out than to keep pretending that he's fine.

That pivot has to have some correlation with perceived likelihood of him dropping out, though? There were whispers, they quietened a bit, and now they're back in action so I think there must be some sort of potential weakness displayed by Biden.

That pivot has to have some correlation with perceived likelihood of him dropping out, though?

I think it has to have some correlation with him doing badly. That could be dropping out or losing the election.

But if this is some managed kabuki theater before Biden steps down, I'd expect one of the names floating around to replace him to be solidified a bit before any of it actually goes down. Maybe I'm not plugged in enough, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

Betting markets think it's most likely Harris

so I think there must be some sort of potential weakness displayed by Biden.

The weakness displayed by Biden is that he hasn't responded, at all.

Your ace pitcher goes out and gets shelled. Ok, whatever, off night, it happens, no real impact on your perception of him. But then he goes out and gives up three runs in five 2/3 innings the next time around. Normal below-average outing, not reallly a sign of anything. But then he goes through two more starts and never makes it to the seventh inning. Now you're starting to wonder if he's lost his fastball.

I think Biden has been distinctly below average, but not notably so, over the time since the debate. If he had performed well at the debate, we wouldn't have any feeling that this represented a problem. But after the debate, he needed to come out and right the ship, and he hasn't. And a lot of people in the horse-race political media are saying "Why aren't the Biden people doing more?" And it's slowly becoming clear that they're not doing more because they can't, because he can't.

It is weird. If they didn’t come out and say anything, then isn’t the blame mostly with Biden? If they say something and Biden stays and loses, then isn’t some of the blame directed to them? Likewise if Harris replaces Biden and loses, isn’t some of the blame directed to them?

What is the upside play? I wonder if this helps somehow down ballot races.

It is weird. If they didn’t come out and say anything, then isn’t the blame mostly with Biden? If they say something and Biden stays and loses, then isn’t some of the blame directed to them?

I don't understand this. If Biden loses after you (some Democratic politician) stay silent, then Democratic voters can blame you for not pressuring him enough to drop out (even if "enough" to convince Biden were an impossibility). Biden would probably still take most of the blame, but you'd be left vulnerable due to your apparent lack of effort to prevent this outcome. On the other hand, if you speak out and Biden still runs and loses, you can claim to have predicted this and worked your hardest to prevent it but was helpless to do so due to Biden not listening to reason. It'd at least provide a defense.

I suppose voters could blame you and others who spoke out for casting doubt on Biden and thus making him a weaker candidate vs Trump? Given how many Americans, even Democrats, seem to consider Biden already too old to run the campaign/country, I'd think that a politician loudly proclaiming such doubt wouldn't stand out as harmful, just as someone speaking an uncomfortable truth.

Maybe. I was just thinking it is pretty deadly to their candidate.

I think a lot of the upside play is they don't have to go around making themselves look stupid insisting Biden is as sharp and vigorous as ever.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

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