site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34129 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

I've been under the impression, in my own bubble, that Trump could roll up the Dems if he came out and said CEASEFIRE NOW. He's flirted with it, saying he'd fix it when he was in office and that's why Arabs would vote for him. But if he really came out saying he was against the war and calling Biden genocide Joe, the Democrats would be sent into such disarray that he'd win on a gimme putt.

This is like saying “if the Democrats pivoted extremely harshly against immigration, they’d win back some voters”, which is true but also clearly against the personal beliefs of many leading Democrats. Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem, he seems clearly very much sympathetic toward Zionism, has a Jewish daughter and a very much zionist son in law etc. The other places where Trump has changed the Republican platform - for example on LGBT issues/gay marriage and on abortion - are situations where his personal opinions reflect those (relatively) more liberal positions.

I think you misunderstand my argument. Trump's unique personal bond with his voterbase would probably enable him to hold onto the vast majority of them, a larger than normal portion of them, regardless of his statements. While his pivot would cause Democrats to hurt themselves in their confusion. When Trump has gotten to the left of the Dems, the Dems get spooked and either go right and alienate their own voters (who mostly don't trust Democratic politicians anyway), or they go even farther left and alienate everyone else.

So Trump comes out for a ceasefire. Harris is in a Dilemma; if she tries to go further left and withdraw all support for Israel she alienates most normal Americans, if she tries to swing zionist and talk about our steadfast support for Israel she alienates a lot of voters she needs in November. Where does this cash out for votes?

I don't think Trump would follow through on it in office, or that it reflects his personal views. I think it would be a political masterstroke, forcing Harris onto the back foot, and likely tying her to any bad thing Israel does between now and November.

Whereas if Dems pivoted against Immigration, they would alienate a lot of their own voters, who don't trust them on immigration, and they wouldn't really win over any Republican voters, who don't trust them on immigration. What makes Trump unique is his charismatic personal bond with a lot of voters, who think he will do the right thing even when he has specifically said he won't.

I think you mis-estimate the views of the silent majority here. Plenty of people find Trump distasteful but not evil.

Siding with massacring terrorists who started a war is wrong, no matter how many of their own children they throw in front of their armories to get blown up. "Ceasefire Now" is telling Israel to accept getting wiped off the map for the crime of being a successful western country when marxists hate them.

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