site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   37165 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 22, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Data point: one of my more MAGA baptist friends told me the other day that he found the whole anger about the switcheroo confusing and lame, because the conservatives were all screaming they had to switch from Biden and then the Democrats did and the Republicans were like NO FAIR.

But the Brat stuff will wear out. The excitement is overrated. I was guilty of saying it was over after the assassination, but I just don't think the fundamentals of the race have changed that much. Trump is in the lead, with about a 2/3 chance of winning the election in November. Tons of stuff will happen in between now and then, but that's what a 2/3 chance looks like.

I think Kamala was a good move for the Dems, but more to get the good vibes going for the undercard. Kamala is here to keep the loss to respectable limit. She's much more likely to pull off the Popular Vote and hold at least one house of congress. That will materially limit what Trump can accomplish, and help keep the #Resistance moving. But I don't think she's going to change the base odds of the race.

As for me personally, I don't hate Kamala, and technically my vote is back in play. I was pretty much certain to vote third party, in that I was more or less morally precluded from voting for either of Trump or Biden. She could persuade me to vote for her, but I doubt she will.

Republicans are hating on the switch because they see it as a potential weakness, and the reason it doesn't seem to be getting traction is that Democrats are so totally shameless about having spent the better part of a year trying to gaslight everyone about Biden's age.

I'm sure they'd prefer to keep beating on Biden, but I'm not quite convinced that Republicans are 'freaking out' about Kamala switching with Joe. As is usual in partisan politics, the game is to criticize them for everything they do and to not allow any win conditions. First you yell at them for entrusting the country with a man who obviously needs to go, then you criticize them again for backstabbing/ousting their dear leader when they actually do away with him. Superficially, this looks inconsistent or hypocritical, but eh. I think this is totally normal.

It's also easier to justify if the argument is "I am criticizing literally every thing you do because they are all consequences of your enormous unforced errors", like an inverted Xanatos Gambit.

I agree. If any Republicans are actually worried about people suddenly recognizing Trump's profound weirdness and caring, I don't see why it would suddenly matter.

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