site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   37132 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.

I think a lot of people overestimate how plugged in VPs are. The President has no responsibility, none at all, to keep the VP in the loop on anything. So we don't know if Kamala knew anything.

Well she should probably not be making statements supporting the president's and his mental acuity as though she's actually aware and in the loop, eh?

This is a bit ridiculous to argue if the premise is that Kamala didn't know what apparently, as we have recently learned, was evident to tons of people in Biden's orbit for months and months.

Like, she must have been intentionally ignoring it at that point.

Thirdly, had Kamala said something, you would as sure as sunshine be carping about what a disloyal, ambitious snake she was for doing so.

Nope. I don't go caring about how politicians treat each other in almost any context. The whole problem is that they're TOO loyal to each other and view their whole political class as an ingroup.

she's responsible and accountable to Biden, not the media.

Funny, I would have argued she's MORE responsible and accountable to her constituents. The ones she lied to. But as we've seen, the Dems don't actually need their voters input, so maybe you're right.

It is dishonest, sure. But such dishonesty is in some ways, necessary to keep organisations running.

So what, if any, punishment is proper for when the dishonesty actually had tangible consequences and is finally revealed to truth?

Or should we promote the dishonest person to a higher position?

I dunno, just seems like you'll get more dishonesty, which TO ME is a major detriment to having functional, accountable organizations.

There's a difference between something being known and something being known. There is no reason to believe that Kamala knew anything that wasn't published in the New York Times. And when I say "know", I don't mean in the smug way that people online apparently know everything, usually after it happens and rarely before. So what actually, should Kamala have said or done? Given a press conference to say that he stopped calling her? To say that he's old? To say that China should invade now while Biden's napping?

You do understand, I hope, the difference here? That actually, every level of government and business in the universe is built upon a certain expectation of loyalty and trust, and that is infinitely more true when we're talking about POTUS? It's not the job of the Vice President to brief the media against the President. If it's believed he's truly incapable, invoke the 25th. Otherwise, what exactly would be gained by gossipping to journalists who have no power?

There's no reason, either, that Kamala would, or should, see undermining the President and her party's Presidential candidate as good for the country.

As far as I know, there are no tangible consequences to the revelation that Biden is losing it, aside from him stepping aside as candidate, which is not even a tangible consequence yet (it might be in six months if Kamala becomes President instead of Trump). If there was some aspect of his responsibilities that was neglected, you'd say so. The real shocking part is not that the President is a vegetable, but that nobody really noticed any material difference in the operation of the country.

If there was some aspect of his responsibilities that was neglected, you'd say so.

If I point out that there's literal millions of illegal border crossing happening on his watch what would you say to that?

Does "controlling the influx of foreign citizens entering the country" count as an "aspect of his responsibilities?"

Does allowing millions to enter and remain in the country without documentation count as 'neglect' of that aspect?

Then that's one. I could go on but I don't think that's the actual topic we're on.

I don't think you're adding much to my judgment of her character or fitness, just further deflections.

I stand by my position that I cannot choose Kamala due to demonstrated incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of actual tangible support for her candidacy because she skipped the normal process.

And you've provided the same weak excuses as everyone else. "SHE COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN!"

A competent leader would have. And would have said something. And wouldn't have lied.

So I will not reward the deceitful, incompetent leader with a promotion.

Oh, I don't think that Kamala is honest or competent. But I don't put this debacle on her. It's ultimately Biden's fault, he's the President and 100% responsible for his decision to seek reelection.

Uh, there's a point here where if the whole argument is that he's becoming senile, then his 'decision' to seek re-election is, in a deeper sense, NOT his responsibility, because SOMEBODY WHO NOTICED HIS DECLINE COULD HAVE STEPPED IN, noticing that his judgment is faulty.

There is in fact an existing precedent for removing an unfit president and of course the Democrats can choose to hold primaries and candidates can choose to run against Biden, so I think 100% is a tad high.

Biden is surrounded by people. He probably has more people around him than any other human being alive. It's not the job, specifically, of the VP to be his physician, or to advocate against him.

It comes up, often, in discussions of nuclear weapons and their use whether officers in the nuclear chain could refuse to carry out orders if they were insane or came from an insane president. It's certainly within the realm of imagination. But to put it bluntly, it's not reasonable. Military officers are trained and selected to obey orders, not to question them. It's not reasonable to expect them to be a check on the President. So too, for the VP. The VP is not now, and never will be, a check on the President. I just don't feel that's a reasonable expectation.

There is no precedent for removing an "unfit president". Kamala could invoke the 25th, and likely fail, or Congress could impeach Biden. Neither of those things have ever been done successfully to a sitting President. It's not clear, either, what these things have to do with going to the press and telling them that Biden is unfit. The media cannot remove Biden from office!

It's not the job, specifically, of the VP to be his physician, or to advocate against him.

Should she advocate for him while knowing his condition? Is that her job?

https://www.dailynews.com/2024/06/29/kamala-harris-reiterates-faith-in-bidens-leadership-at-brentwood-fundraiser/

Getting kinda amused by the deflections that ignore that she was not neutral or silent during this process. She doesn't get to dodge judgment for statements she actually made.

Just how, precisely, do you find it acceptable to be lied to directly, in a way that REALLY matters, and then decide to PROMOTE the person who lied to you?

HOW?

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