site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   32968 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.

And presumably she needs to say “and this is why I changed my mind.” If she just says “well I was campaigning” then she admits she was lying either then or now and which is it.

And if she can change her mind on so many issues in such a short period of time, that per se is a worrying thing. Sure, changing your mind on one thing or the other is a good thing. It shows you are willing to update. But changing your mind on like 5 or 6 major things in a few years when you are a major pol?

I do think the flip flopping will be one of the best lines of attack against her.

In her case, she’s very lucky to be running against Trump who changes his positions with the wind.

Is that true? With Trump, he seems relatively consistent. He is anti immigration, favors protectionist trade policies, skeptical (but not exactly hostile) towards foreign alliances and foreign wars, likes lower taxes, doesn’t care as much about spending, and supports reduced regulations.

That has been pretty consistent since he has been on the scene. Where was the flip flopping?

Too many to list, but for just one example he's gone a complete 180 on the Jan 6 rioters - on Jan 7th he said "The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay." By contrast these days he opens his rallies by saluting them, calls them political prisoners and promises to pardon them.

And he could point to a bunch of new evidence that seemingly does suggest that a decent number are being wrongfully charged, especially relative to the norm.

Okay, but that's shifting the goalposts. You were saying "Trump doesn't flip flop", now you're saying "Trump was correct to change his position". Those are different arguments.

You could, if you were so inclined, come up with a sympathetic argument for why Trump changed opinions on any given issue. Sometimes those arguments might even be somewhat true. But I think the underlying reality is that Trump just honestly doesn't have strong beliefs on many issues and changes position pretty easily.

The most recent was on the Tik Tok ban which he rallied for then turned against.

Yeah agreed. That is a flip flop. But that also seems like a rather tertiary issue (can’t imagine it is a top ten issue for voters per polling). On the big issues he has been very consistent (and that isn’t always great because on some of those positions he is wrong).

On the big issues, Harris vacillates.

The Tik Tok thing is a core representation of how Trump thinks and makes decisions though. He supported banning it on what seemed like a whim, a rich investor who seems to have some financial connections to China made a big donation, and then Trump came out against the ban. He repeats this pattern over and over. He seems uniquely and obviously prone to self-enrichment and therefore a completely untrustworthy on major issues like China, both to domestic people but also importantly to international partners.

Some other obvious flip flops/inconsistencies that come to mind with 10 seconds of thinking:

  1. Immigration, he recently went on the VC grifter podcast and said he's all for skilled immigration. He said the same thing before he was president but one of his first acts was to totally fuck up the visa/green card process for all my high skilled immigrant friends and leave them randomly stranded far from home.
  2. Stances on crypto
  3. Stances on taxes

Here are some more details: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/22/trump-policy-flip-flop-00164538

  1. So he said he was for skilled immigration before and after. Then he implemented something not directly targeting skilled immigration but having that as a second order effect and you claim he flip flopped? That isn’t really a flip flop.

2 crypto sure. Doubt he spent much time thinking about crypto.

  1. Taxes I don’t think so. Where is the flip flop?

Also all pols are influenced by rich donors; especially on issues they don’t particular care about.

TikTok ban, for example. At least Trump’s flip flopping is easy to predict (preferences of the last rich donor he interacted with)

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