site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   32638 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In elections, achievements do not matter in and of themselves. Only optics matter. Achievements only matter insofar as they help the optics. Trump had pretty much zero political achievements when he ran in 2016, but he ended up completely clobbering the rest of the Republicans and then beating Clinton.

Harris might not have Trump's high levels of charisma, and she might have no achievements to speak of, but that won't matter if the Harris campaign succeeds in framing the election as a fight between "fresh young hip Kamala and her cool cats" vs. "old stale criminal Trump and his gang of weirdoes". The facts don't matter, the reality doesn't matter. Only the optics matter.

Trump had pretty much zero political achievements when he ran in 2016,

And virtually everyone he ran against had a ton of political failures that he could pin them with because holy cow the years leading up to Trump were dismal in terms of anything good coming from the political process.

People don't remember that pretty much nobody on the debate stage could make a case for their great leadership or successful policy goal they'd helped push through. They all came across as feckless, useless grifters in the sense that they were asking for support when their records showed that they'd not done anything to earn it.

At this point, Trump AT LEAST can say he helped bring about the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, and can continue that trend if he gets elected and has support from the Senate.

The facts don't matter, the reality doesn't matter. Only the optics matter.

Yeah but the optics didn't used to be COMPLETELY illusory.

If we're through the looking glass at this point then literally nothing matters. Run whatever candidate you want and voters will accept just about any narrative about them.

If we're through the looking glass at this point then literally nothing matters. Run whatever candidate you want and voters will accept just about any narrative about them.

Yeah we are in a post post truth world. Whoever writes the best story wins.

And the optics are decided on by the media, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. Game, set, and match.

And the optics are decided on by the media, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC. Game, set, and match.

And social media, which is more of a mixed bag.

And yet Democrats sometimes lose elections. Kamala might well lose, her chances are worse than Hillary Clinton's.

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