site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32874 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.

Has she taken any questions during these appearances? Any non-screened questions? Any tough questions?

Besides the event where Trump said Kamala wasn't black, has he? He's the one backing out of the debate, not Harris.

  • -11

Notably, at that event, it was Harris who didn't show up (and had been scheduled to).

This is almost bad faith.

A agrees to X with B.

C now claims A is backing out of X because A isn’t doing X with C.

Formally, the agreement was for a debate among all candidates who had broken 15% in certain polls in a certain time window. Maybe Trump assumed his opponent would be Biden but that was not part of the actual terms.

I don't think Trump has an obligation to stick to the planned debate. But I don't think you can say Kamala's the one trying to stay out of the spotlight either. If Republicans want a spotlight on Kamala to put the screws to her, all they'd have to do is stick to the original planned debate.

Trump offered her a debate and she said stick to the one you negotiated with Biden but substitute me. I’m sure they’ll both cave somewhere in the middle.

Probably what will happen. But if either felt they were at a big advantage from more debates, they'd just demand multiple debates under a variety of conditions

Oh other than the 1 hour absolutely hostile interview he did with 2 people who despise him and a crowd of people who probably despise him?

That's a big deal, and that is the exact type of thing I would like to see Harris do.

He did a podcast interview with Adin Ross, but that was a friendly interview. So that makes two, one friendly, one tough. But more importantly, Trump has also been campaigning a long time as being top of the ticket, and has done many interviews, both hostile and friendly. Kamala has an obligation to now speak for herself and represent herself to the American public, now that she is not under the obligation of supporting Biden.

Also, has far as I can tell, Kamala has never done a tough or hostile interview during her entire time running for VP, as VP, or running for president. (If you can find an example, I'd like to see it.)

Trump has an interview with Elon musk coming up Monday as well.

This lacks context. Biden got Trump to agree to absurd debate conditions that Kamala wanted to hang onto.

I'll powerlift against @practicalromantic anytime anywhere, if @Walterodim wants a foot race I'll ask for conditions.

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