site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   32892 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.

he’s currently claiming that Harris isn’t actually black.

If you actually watch the interview Trump's claim was 'Harris chooses whether to emphasize her Indian heritage or African heritage depending on however the IdPol winds are blowing' not that she's literally not Black.

“I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”

That’s the quote, questioning if a mixed race person is black. OP claiming Trump Is somehow above the mud of dirty politics is laughable.

Less we forget Trump was a huge pusher of the birth certificate claim against Obama. He’s been this way all along.

I think there's a difference of presenting something untrue as fact and questioning someone's willingness to rebrand themselves the instant the winds change. If you interpret "Is she black" as a racial statement rather one of cultural alignment than that's your movie screen. "Is she black" is a relevant question to Black America - is she truly someone who aligns herself to the plights of impoverished Black Americans, or is she conveniently emphasizing her Blackness as a way to procure votes? It's mudslinging, sure, but also has an element of truth asking people to analyze her character beyond simple racial solidarity.

It is the Democrats who dragged Trump through the mud with legitimately false claims such as the Steele Dossier. I find Trump's 'lies', 'hyperbole', or 'political mudslinging' positively refreshing compared to the gaslighting Democrats have shown themselves willing to do on an international level for the past 8 years.

If you're going to imbue 'Black Identity' with cultural cachet, a shared experience, and promote it above others, it is absolutely correct to question whether celebrity politicians honestly reflect it or are grifting.

Is English your first language?

That very clearly reads as him attacking her for choosing what group to identify with based on convenience.

Is English your first language?

Don't do that, please. Even if you think someone is being obtuse.

Is there a way to ask this legitimately though?

I’m actually just curious if the undertone isn’t coming through in translation. It seems totally reasonable that a non native English speaker would interpret what Trump is saying here literally and not understand the implied meaning.

I’d consider attacking a mixed race person based on their identity well beyond the pale. However this is a forum that vigorously defended a child rapist last week so unsurprised the reaction to Trump’s racism. Lot of weird people here.

  • -26

  1. He is attacking her for being a phony (Indian when it helps, black when it helps).

  2. She is 1/4 black. Is that really black? She is more non black than black. One drop rule?

He’s claiming she’s not really African American and as far as I can tell that’s just literally true- she’s not.

child rapist

Who?

I presume he's referring to Stephen van de Welde.

Link to discussion

I’d consider attacking a mixed race person based on their identity well beyond the pale.

For a moment, I thought describing his comment like this was weird, but then it occurred to me that using particular blunt and non-descriptive categories to describe a specific event in a way that attaches negative affect is a common enough occurrence that one of Scott Alexander's more famous essays on SlateStarCodex back in the day, titled The Worst Argument in the World IIRC, was based around it. Of course, this is my subjective take, but Trump's line, on its merits, seems far more similar to his attacks on another mixed race person based on their identity, Elizabeth Warren, whom he called "Pocahontas," presumably as a way to insultingly accuse her of opportunistically abusing her claimed heritage for career advancement. Except without the schoolyard name-calling, but rather making a pretty meaningful - though unfalsifiably vague - claim, that Harris is selectively emphasizing aspects of her racial identity opportunistically to garner points depending on the context.

Honestly, pointing out Harris's or Warren's alleged cynical racial maneuvering seems rather trite considering that's pretty much expected of someone ambitious and arrogant enough to try to be the next POTUS, and Trump of all people should probably know that, but I've never clocked him as the self aware type. Still, politicians at least like to roleplay being respectable, and they do it well enough to convince a lot of people, and certainly on its merits, the kind of behavior being alleged is not respectable, so I don't find the accusation beyond the pale. Rather well within the pale, in fact, to the extent that it's actually pretty damning to US journalism that in a country whose political discourse explicitly talks so much about how race should inform how we treat individuals and enforcing that with policy, the industry doesn't spend more time questioning politicians on how they might have cynically maneuvered the racialist landscape to consolidate their power. I don't know who'd be the ones to damn, though, because the journalists are ultimately serving an audience that just doesn't care about that.

He's not attacking her identity wantonly, he's attacking the way she uses it.

Speak about individuals, don't make (inaccurate) generalizations like this. If you want to accuse the person you're talking to of defending child rapists, fine, accuse him of saying that (and be prepared to defend it), but "this forum" did not "vigorously defend a child rapist." This is the sort of straw man that gets people bounced, and then they whine that we're banning people for going against "forum culture."

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