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.

Do you really think this passes an ideological turing test and accurately models the reaction of marginal democrats and independents? Also, why do you think a 30-year-old sex scandal would hurt Harris when multiple such scandals haven't hurt Trump?

There's a big difference between sex to get ahead and sex once you get ahead.

Harris is accused of using sex to get her first job in politics. Trump is accused of using his wealth/Fame/position to get sex.

This is mostly a gendered dynamic, but it's also more elemental than that. Consider: if instead of fucking Willie Brown to get ahead for politics, Kamala had used her position as Senator or VP to sleep with AJ Brown the eagles wide receiver for pleasure. Totally different dynamic, different accusations would be hurled towards her.

Sex-for-promotion has the principle-agent problem, absent in power-for-sex. Feminists might accuse Trump of abusing "power dynamics" and make Clinton's affair tantamount to rape of Lewinsky, but in the end the only victims are their sex partners.

But if Kamala got her job only because of her skills in bed, then the aggrieved party is the organization in which she was unfairly promoted by a guy she is said to have gave head to.

Men and women are not the same. A man sleeping around is powerful. A women using her sexuality for favors is not powerful.

Because there are fundamentally different optics for the two of them. They're competing for the office of the presidency, a position in which it helps to have a fearsome reputation among your enemies. Trump plowing through women is a sign of strength and vigor, moral arguments notwithstanding. Kamala sucking dick for clout makes her sound incompetent and submissive. These are not Commander In Chief qualities.

Because she's a woman.

Doesn't that just make people more sympathetic to her, and more likely to give her the benefit of the doubt?

While I think the extent of the double standard is overstated, it really is much more acceptable for a man to be promiscuous than a woman.

Men and women are not the same, so different standards apply, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise (even some radfems are, funnily enough).

Not in cases of sexual immorality. The double standard exists for a lot of reasons but it does exist.

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