site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   29550 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I quite literally haven't heard a single word that's actually a thought that occurred in her head rather than something that someone else wrote down for her to say.

Change the genders and that is just Obama's campaign in 2008. It's all vibes, and always has been.

I could tell what excited people about Obama, everyone showing up here that's pro-Harris seems to say it's just about the Blue team being able to win.

What do you think excited people about Obama? From what I remember of my perceptions of 2008, I think to me it seemed that basically the only substantive thing exciting people about Obama was the idea that he would replace the administration that gave us the Iraq War. Other than that, it seemed to me that people just liked him because he was a handsome, eloquent, intelligent young black man (and thus, basically, a character straight out of a Democrat's dreams) and that he spoke of hope and change.

To be fair, I watched very few of his public appearances on the campaign trail, so it is possible that I missed a lot.

I wasn't watching his appearances either, I was doing what I'm doing now - hanging out at neiche American-centric internet forums. Like you said, the burnout with Iraq and Afghanistan was starting to set in, the 2008 crisis was unfolding just as the election was ramping up, and healthcare reform was on people's minds. "Handsome, eloquent, intelligent and young" may seem vacuous, but his youth meant he was a bit of an upstart (2008 was the first "It's Her Turn" I remember), giving the impression that he'll bring something new to the table, and set the US away from the course that got it to it's current position (in that sense he was the Democratic equivalent of Trump) while "eloquent and intelligent" implied he'll be competent enough to do so.

The reason the excitement for Harris campaign seems so artificial, is that they're trying pull off the "upstart" shtick while arguing for an incumbent, and appealing to hope for a better tomorrow while studiously avoiding any mention of not just how they will make tomorrow better, but of what is supposed to be better about it.

The war was a big deal at the time, so it was no small thing. He had credibility on it, too, rather than being a flip flopper. Combined with his personal charisma and the dissatisfaction of the on-going financial crisis and all sorts of people had something to be excited about.

The difference is that Obama is actually good at this. Harris is a prop and she has been her entire career.

I'd say he's been the best President of 2024.

I was digging through Google for old articles about Harris from when she was elected AG and a huge number of them were direct comparisons to Obama when he was the Hot New Thing. She's been pretty directly groomed for this and she still can't do much more than read from a teleprompter.

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