site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   30108 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 12, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think the reason vote buying isn't the norm is that it's basically illegal and more importantly, the amount it'd take to get any high number of American's to 'sell' their votes is pretty high. Yes, you can could get a promise from a bunch of people to sell their for vote for $100, but actually getting proof and such before sending payment would be a much more complicated scenario, when it'd be actually much cheaper and efficient to get more people to support you to turn out.

Whatever you'd spend on the former, is far better spent on just getting low propensity people within your own coalition to drop off their ballot in the dropbox or mail.

Yes, if you're a poor country and selling your vote can pay your rent for a month, that's one thing. America is too rich for that.

Are you familiar with walking around money? People don't actually need to be paid very much to do things. There isn't actually much of an attachment to political positions for most people.

Sure, getting people out to vote by paying them is one thing - but verifying they're actually voting the way you want is a whole other thing. Obviously, if you do that in a D+80 area, the few Republican votes you'd end up is worth it, but we're talking about payment for legitimately changing their vote.

The sorts of people who would vote for money aren't the sort that would vote republican, except in deep deep rural areas.

Why not? By hypothesis, the targets of such a scheme would have to be pretty apolitical, or at least not fanatically partisan. What would make them any harder for one party to buy off than the other?

Because such people would be the dregs of society, and the dregs of society don’t like republicans very much. Inasmuch as democrats can get more of the underclass to vote, they benefit.

That's the whole thing with mailin ballots + harvesting though -- if you weren't going to vote anyways, and some nice person shows up at your door to 'encourage' you to fill out your ballot, it's not too hard to imagine this leading to a conversation in which said person 'helps' you choose the right options. Which could plausibly lead to cash changing hands if this person is, say, co-ethnic and establishes some kind of trust relationship.

There are a lot of people willing to do weird illegal things for trivial amounts. Pill mills were paying their patsies like $100/mo.

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