site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   30120 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.

Btw - CNN and WAPO are very critical of this parts of her policy? Any explanation for that especially CNN? Convention surprise?

I think it's possible that no one wants to starve, even journalists, and they are hoping to dissuade Harris from committing to this policy while still hoping she wins.

Yes, I think this is exactly right. Of course these writers don’t want Harris to lose, they’re writing because they want her to win and they want that win to be successful.

CNN is a centrist(well, center left), establishment platform. Left populism is not that. CNN understands basic economics when it benefits their 'team' and that team is 'let the experts rule'. The experts really hate price controls.

I mean, after the past month I'm certainly inclined to consider political motivations. But it seems most likely to me in this case that the media outlets actually see her proposals as bad for the country. Being a partisan hack doesn't preclude calling out genuine insanity if you see it. Especially when there are people from the Obama admin saying they're very critical. They get to quote "experts" and look fair and balanced at the same time.

They may also think that by proposing dangerous economic policies, she's setting herself up for failure, whether in November 2024 or November 2028. And they don't want the first female president to fail.

Being a partisan hack doesn't preclude calling out genuine insanity if you see it.

That's not how I remember the last decade. So I think your latter explanation is a lot more likely. Especially given how the criticisms are phrased.

The sudden disloyalty is surprising, but I think the people fantasizing about a convention replacement may be deluding themselves.

There is a legitimate case however, that Harris essentially coup'd herself into the candidacy and the people whose hand were forced shut up for a time, but were not going to shut up forever.

Convention replacement would truly be absurd.

I don't fantasize for convention replacement because I think she is the second worst candidate democrats have. The worst is Biden ofc. And she plateaued in polls lately - so media frenzy can push you so far.

I always want both parties to put forward their best candidate.

They are.

Debatable, Abott is arguably the GOPs best canditate but part of what makes him the best candidate is being smart enough to keep his head down and keep building up connections and parallel institutions.

To be clear, Abbott is also smart enough not to take on Trump directly. From his perspective waiting for 28 is a win-win.

Everyone who knows him in the Texas GOP is quite clear that he intends to be president one day. He just thinks 'successor to Trump' or 'Trump was a good president, but he's 83' are both better pitches than going toe to toe with him. He can also expect abortion(his biggest liability) to take up less room in the discourse the longer he waits.

That scans.

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