site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   29649 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.

Here is an interesting development: Kamala Harris is now demanding unmuted microphones for her debate with Donald Trump.

It's been memory holed, but I seem to remember the general opinion being that allowing Trump to interrupt his opponent during debates gave him an unfair advantage since he would interrupt more often. This appears to be a complete 180. It's tempting to model this as a reflexive reaction to Trump's dominance in the June debate with Biden (which muted the candidates' microphones when it wasn't their turn to speak), but I get the sense that there are deeper strategic considerations at play. A few possibilities:

  • The Harris Campaign wants Trump to come off as unhinged by giving him the oppurtunity to make a complete ass of himself. This didn't work for Jeb, Rubio, Cruz, or Hillary, but maybe it will work for Harris? (I am pressing X to doubt)

  • Kamala wants to unleash her inner prosecutor and roll around in the mud with Trump. This could work, but it strikes me as the kind of thing that sounds better in the shower than it does in real life.

  • This is just mind games. The Harris Campaign is using meaningless nitpicks to bait Trump into doing something stupid. I think this is an underrated strategy in general. It would be very bullish for Harris if the people in charge are this smart.

Kamala wants to unleash her inner prosecutor and roll around in the mud with Trump.... sounds better in the shower than it does in real life.

Phrasing.

Kamala wants to unleash her inner prosecutor

Kamala can't unleash her inner prosecutor when she's being interviewed 1 on 1 by a friendly journo, I very much doubt she'll be able to out-shitpost Trump on stage. Maybe they think they have some real good pre-learned zingers for her, or maybe they realise just how bad the whole mic-muting-control looks optics wise, the people understand they are desparate, maybe this is a way to show that they are somehow back in control. It'll be hillarious either way.

They also want Kamala to get a 'Shut up, I'm talking' viral clip.

The public likes Trump more when he shuts up. Throughout all his political campaigns (with an exception of early 2016) and his entire presidency, his approval rating and polling would go down when he was in the news for saying boneheaded crap, and then it'd go back up when he wasn't saying anything at all. Trump doesn't ever really do stuff that's good PR, so simple "not bad" is the high point for him.

The Harris campaign likely judges that the more he speaks, the more likely he is to put his foot in his mouth. The most spectacular example of this was the first debate in 2020 when he acted like a petulant child the entire time, which cost him 4% in post-debate polling. 4% is a crazy big move in an era of hyper polarization.

There's also the chance that Trump is now just too old to really quip back effectively. Trump has never been a particularly effective debater. He could hold his own in 2016 and benefited from his opponent imploding in 2024, but he's always had a meandering semi-coherent speaking style that's only become worse with age. There could be an opportunity for Harris to jab at him in a way that he couldn't effectively counter.

Trump's campaign knows he's a liability, but Trump himself almost certainly doesn't like being "muzzled" to any extent, so it's Trump + Dems on one side and Trump's campaign on the other, trying to keep their candidate from another self-inflicted wound. I can only imagine the lies his campaign staff is trying to cook up to convince him not to turn on the mics, because they obviously can't tell the truth to someone like him.

I think it's a defensive move; Trump is good at debates (well, not at debating, but at turning the debate to his advantage) so they want to force a 'draw' by making it as chaotic and unproductive as possible.

Not a great strategy, Kamala trying to match Trump will probably come off as 'bitchy', not the 'sassy' they're hoping for.

What in the world?

Trump has never been good at debating. At best he's been OK, as in he's been good enough to not crumple to someone like Jeb Bush's attacks back in 2016, but he's never really gained much from debates, he's just treaded water.

Then in 2020 he gave one of the worst debate performances in presidential history.

And he flubbed strategically in 2024 by letting Biden debate way early, when there was still time for the Dems to change horses. Trump is in a much weaker position because of that debate than where he was before it.

Let’s see:

  1. He ended Jeb Bush’s political career in a debate.

  2. He had one of the best lines in debate history “because you’d be in jail” which just might have pushed him over the top in 2016.

  3. He ended Biden’s political career in a debate.

He did poorly in 2020.

Not sure id say he is a top debater but he surely isn’t bad.

  1. I don't recall any great debate flub by Jeb, but 2016 was a long time ago so maybe I'm forgetting something?
  2. The "because you'd be in jail" didn't help him, and if anything it temporarily cost him support with moderates. Trump went from -4.6 against Clinton to -7.1 in the weeks following that.
  3. Biden self-destructed. Trump didn't do anything to help it along other than a weak "I don't think he knows what he's talking about" and be minimally competent enough to not also get dinged. A good debater could have accelerated it (like what Christie did to Rubio in 2016).

he's never really gained much from debates, he's just treaded water.

This is a pretty bizarre standard, because generally debates don't matter much at all. Who remembers the 2008 or 2012 debates? As I recall Romney was generally considered to win a few debates against Obama, but it didn't really matter and nobody cared. Trump, by contrast, used the 2015 debates to win the primary, the 2nd debate with Hillary to revive his campaign after the Billy Bush tapes, and now his debate with Biden to force an unprecedented mid-election switch. Declaring that Trump is a bad debater is one of those stylistic preferences, where people who already don't like Trump conclude he isn't actually good at anything.

Who remembers the 2008 or 2012 debates?

I remember Obama's "slam dunk" on Romney, in which he said the following.

Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia ... the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years

It's somewhat ironic, in retrospect.

He did great in the 2016 republican debates. Consistenty entertaining and stole the spotlight, as you'd expect from someone who spent so long working in reality TV. He struggles more with the 1v1 debate format, i think. Maybe because that gives both people too much airtime and the whole thing is just boring.

His advantage in the 2016 debates stemmed from his approach being so unconventional that the audience found it exhilarating, and the other participants were so flummoxed by anyone not being appalled by it that they didn't know how to effectively respond. By 2020 his schtick had worn thin, and Biden knew what he was up against.

Honestly that says more about the extraordinary weakness of the 2016 Republican field than it does about Trump's strength.

The silver lining here is that it's going to be great entertainment.

Millions of streamers are now salivating at the prospect of commenting on a sassy black woman putting misogynist old huwhite Drumpf back in his place or glorious tangerine god emperor throwing Kamabla in a volcano of facts and logic.

There is a grandiose spiritual conflict for the ages in this. The shameless robber baron huckster versus the soulless HR lady corporate face.

Which one will better skewer social norms to their aid? Which one will inherit the soul of America?

Millions of streamers are now salivating at the prospect of commenting on a sassy black woman putting misogynist old huwhite Drumpf back in his place or glorious tangerine god emperor throwing Kamabla in a volcano of facts and logic.

Neither of these seems likely to me. Kamala doesn't seem that witty, and "facts and logic" isn't the kind of witty Trump is, even when he's on.

huwhite

Unrelated but what is this spelling about? I've seen it a lot but never got the memo.

I thought it was like cool whip. https://youtube.com/watch?v=nfVEvgWd4ek?si=Yuf-nRiy-BURug_2

I think it started with imitating famous Japanese social scientist Jared Taylor's upper class accent.

I think it's supposed to be mocking people with upper-class accents who pronounce the "w" in white.

Or it's referring to this chick.

(Despite her going viral a while ago, the only video I could easily find of her was from the Daily Wire. "Asian girl spitting while saying white people" uh... gives a lot of results in an entirely different genre...)

There are people... Who don't pronounce the "w" in "white"?

Sorry - meant "h". Apparently it's actually supposed to be lower-class dialect, though I distinctly remember a debate on a talk show many years ago where a Bostonian was arguing that "whether" is properly pronounced with an "h." Which is probably why a pretentious, aspirated "wh" sound registers more as an upper-class thing to me.

I was scratching my head trying to figure out how someone pronounced white sans w. Hey look that guys hite!

Pronouncing the h is one thing, inserting an initial h is another.

I’m not convinced that @hydroacetylene and @sarker are right about the intended connotations. The various upper class New England accents (most notably the Transatlantic accent, but other accents as well) have also traditionally distinguished between “w” and “wh.” I’d always assumed that “huwhite” was meant to mock the (outdated) stereotype of an old-fashioned, conservative, racist, elitist, country club snob, not a poor, dumb hick.

To be fair, the white racist in question could be southern too, but either way, he’s elite.

"huwhite" clearly emphasizes an initial "h" sound, not that there's an "h" following the "w".

More comments

Pronouncing the h in white is a deep rural accent from the red dirt belt where the south and lower midwest meet- not particularly upper class or high status. Think Hank Hill but ruraler.

Yes, this must surely be it. Imagine "hwhaait" in a southern drawl.

In Django Unchained, DiCaprio’s character does it pretty frequently.

The times I’ve seen it it’s used to at least imply that the person involved is hoping a white man would be put in his place.

I expect probably both bitchy and sassy are undesirable adjectives here. Confident and aggressive, maybe.

It helps them avoid talking policy which seems to be one of their main strategies other than keeping Kamala away from any unscripted events. I mean obviously during the debate itself they will finally have to justify their policy assuming Trump can call them out on how stupid things like price caps on food, taxing unrealized gains, and giving virtually everyone 25k free towards their house is, but if there is a lot of back and forth bickering and banter between those bits than the media coverage over the next week can ignore the policy weaknesses and just report on the Jerry Springer esque drama. Drown out any policy weaknesses.

I think one interesting thing Trump could do is say you were against XYZ and now allegedly coming to my position. The position you labeled deplorable. The position you labeled anti American. Maybe if voters want that position, vote for the guy who didn’t try everything else until they were forced to at the last moment.

I think it’s 3). Kamala is trying to bait trump into looking like an ass canceling.

He says many stupid-sounding things. In the recent event where the guy was grabbed by cops going over the rail I heard Trump in the background (well technically he was the main event but the video footage was of the climbing guy), expounding on how at some point in the recent past (maybe his shooting day) a couple of US flags were flying in just the right way as to resemble, in a photograph, angel's wings. Which is Sunday School for toddlers enough of an image, but then he kept on about it, like he wouldn't drop it. Now I'm not irreligious and I can even be moved by certain religious iconography but this seemed like the kind of hamfisted shitty politicking you'd hear in a Hollywood film penned by someone trying to satire a populist politician.

Anyway. I am trying very hard to see Trump in the best possible light. I find not listening to him speak useful. God help me.

The longer Kamala speaks uninterrupted, the more incoherent she appears. Thus, her teams wants the debate to be a continuous conversation: She interrupts Trump, he interrupts her, and she doesn't get bound up in 2 minute rambling answers. This is the opposite of Joe, who can no longer adapt quickly to a live conversation, so they wanted closed mics so he could recite rehearsed answers.

The twitter PR spin (that comes from Kamala's handlers, almost certainly not Kamala herself) is just spin. I think you have to be very credulous to believe that Trump is scared of debating Kamala Harris. Likewise, I don't imagine that Kamala's brain trust is a brilliant team of superplanners. They probably just figured this was an attack line that sounded good. I don't think it is.

The longer Kamala speaks uninterrupted, the more incoherent she appears.

There's an interesting point in there.

Most politicians are quite good at establishing a rapport with their constituents during in-person interaction. I won't link them here for the sake of brevity, but "I met ${congressman} and he wasn't the scum-sucking pile of human shit that I expected him to be" stories are incredibly common. This rapport building usually translates to public speaking as well. It's almost a universal trait in politicians.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of four cases where that's not true, and where direct person to person communication seems to result in lower favorability for the politician in question. They are in no particular order:

  • Kamala Harris
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Michael Bloomberg
  • Rick Santorum

Looking at that list, I can't really see any obvious commonality. We have two and a half Democrats and one and a half Republicans (I'm splitting Bloomberg). We have prosecutors and businessmen. We have men and women. We have representatives from the North, South, East, and West.

Are there other politicians like this, where their mere presence seems to be anathema to their political goals? What's behind it?

Hillary is the GOAT of "How in the hell is she worse in person?!" stories around the beltway.

The further we get from 2016, the more it looks like a Trump victory was inevitable.

None of them had really faced a truly competitive election before, except for Santorum (who racked up some genuinely impressive wins). Usually politicians have to have some baseline likeability to get to the national election stage.

Rick Santorum

Are we sure about that? The public seemed to like him less as they got to know him, but he was supposedly genuine, friendly, and caring-seeming in person, just way outside the overton window on the public stage.

Santorum's political career is an interesting case study. Everyone forgets this, but when he was in the House he represented a district that was heavily Democratic and waged his first Senate campaign as the prototypical "compassionate conservative" who would look critically at the budget but still try to accommodate social services spending. At the very least, he always shied away from the "up by your bootstraps" mentality that characterized a lot of the Reagan right in those days. As such, he was a rising young star who had bipartisan support. His first term was relatively uneventful, and he cruised to victory in a totally unmemorable campaign that was nonetheless closer than it probably should have been. He was popular enough in PA but had no national profile. He decided to rectify this during the Bush administration by going hard in the direction of the religious right. This decision absolutely boggles the mind. Maybe things looked different in 2001 or 2002, but those guys generally don't win presidential primaries, let alone general elections. He couldn't even keep his Senate seat, losing to Bob Casey, who even back then always looked like he was about to fall asleep.

As far as him being unlikable in person is concerned — I'm from the same neck of the woods as him and I never heard that. That being said, most of his interactions around here are from the '90s, when he was "your local elected official" as opposed to after 2000, when he was "national political celebrity". Part of the reason people may view him as unlikable may be that he turned into a caricature of himself at some point and couldn't turn it off. Maybe the lone attendee of his 2016 rally during the Iowa Caucuses can shed some light on this.

He decided to rectify this during the Bush administration by going hard in the direction of the religious right. This decision absolutely boggles the mind.

It's entirely possible that this is 100% driven by genuine religious convictions.

That being said, most of his interactions around here are from the '90s, when he was "your local elected official

All the reports I have are from PSU and CMU faculty and staff. That probably has enough impact that, in hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have included him in the list.

Are we sure about that?

I can't say for sure. The people I know who have met him first-hand are all of a specific (upper middle class blue tribe) type, so there may be some cognitive bias in play.

"I met ${congressman} and he wasn't the scum-sucking pile of human shit that I expected him to be" stories are incredibly common.

I'm always surprised that they're surprised. Con artists don't scam people by being so off-putting that no one would ever want to speak with them. People can know going into an interaction that they're being targeted for a confidence trick and then still get tricked by it.

It would be interesting if Trump chose not to speak at all and gave Kamala a chance to hold a two hour uninterrupted unprepared speech.

The impartial, unbiased moderator would immediately declare the debate over. The network would then proceed to the post-debate discussion in which a panel of impartial, unbiased journalists would discuss how Kamala's stunning and brave girlbossity dazzled the Bad Orange Man into a catatonic state.

This is pretty low effort. At least make doomposting interesting and have something to say.

meanwhile... https://www.themotte.org/post/1140/transnational-thursday-for-august-29-2024/245145?context=8#context

The job of the mods is hard enough and they’re doing a great job. Let’s cut them some slack.

Campy is at least trying to be humorous which I appreciate. The mods post was just sneering. They literally can't think of a single reason beyond contrarianism that people aren't supportive of Ukraine?

You don't have to call me a "they," I'm not non-binary.

The question wasn't "Why aren't you supportive of Ukraine?" It's "Why are you pro-Russia?" Those aren't the same thing.

More comments

Unmodded post, he can say whatever as a citizen.

And in every discussion you will see the same comments about how they're against Ukraine because globalism or trans people or something. It just feels wildly incongruous every time, like trolling.

More comments

Here is an interesting development: Kamala Harris is now demanding unmuted microphones for her debate with Donald Trump.

You think that was a demand?

The full text of the tweet is:

Donald Trump is surrendering to his advisors who won't allow him to debate with a live microphone. If his own team doesn't have confidence in him, the American people definitely can’t. We are running for President of the United States. Let’s debate in a transparent way—with the microphones on the whole time.

I don't think "Let's [do thing]" would be a demand if Trump was saying it, and I don't think this is a demand.

And I think that without those blinders, it is pretty plain to see that she is trying to taunt him.

My guesses are more like some mix of

  1. They're changing the conditions repeatedly to try to get Trump to pick a fight in a fit of pique and call off the debate altogether. Which Trump might do at any given time. This is at worst a neutral outcome for Kamala.

  2. They want a messy debate where Trump yells a lot and she scolds a lot and the moderators try to get everyone back into order and nobody even remembers what anyone said about anything substantive. They don't think Kamala can deliver a great performance, so the best choice is to make sure that Trump doesn't either. The noise about it is at worst a neutral outcome for Kamala.

I maintain my theory that Kamala's mission is primarily aiming to shithouse a draw, and if she manages a win then great. But the goal is to make sure the Dems win the house, hang onto as close a margin in the Senate as possible, and hopefully win the popular vote to undermine the Trump "mandate" in the popular consciousness. What could undermine that goal is a disaster debate, where Kamala looks lost on substantive issues.

So they're minimizing risks. The better, more substantial debate has upside, but it has downside. A shithouse yelling match will just force everyone to double down on their priors and won't change anything.

I like this take.

Trump's debate performance is a known quantity. He can land solid substantive points earlier in the debate. He had some real wins on immigration in the first half with Biden. He then gets either bored, distracted, or hung up on a single issue. This turns into rambling, but Trumpian rambling has a fixed return on investment - pretty much zero, but not negative.

Kamala's debate abilities are forecast to be between 2008 financial crisis and negative eleven billion. The DNC showed she can give a speech, perhaps. But the time pressures and direct adversarial nature of a debate are not at all her home field.

Exactly. The dems are losing two senate seats for sure, and there’s good chances of losing two or three more. They don’t really have pickup opportunities. Their standard bearer is a ditz whose softball interview with CNN had to be edited and still looked bad. The democrats strategy is to minimize risk as much as possible while trying to drive TDS. If Kamala can scrape out a win that way it’s great, but if she can’t, then at least keep the republicans from winning 54 senate seats and enough house seats to do what they want.

If having unmuted mics worked for Trump last time, why is his team not agreeing to it now?

I'm thinking trumps cognitive decline is far worse than expected and his team is worried about how he'll look.

What are you talking about? Trump speaks in public regularly and gives frequent interviews. These interviews are more critical than anything Kamala Harris or Joe Biden are subjected to. Trump was literally just shot in the head at a rally and had the presence of mind to stand up and pump his fist yelling, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" Before that, he debated Joe Biden in conditions that lead to Biden having to resign from the race. He was just at Arlington and gave several appearances in public there. What decline? Trump isn't hiding.

I think "Trump's cognitive decline" is just a talking point from the DNC, though I thought it had petered out a couple of weeks ago.

I think Trump actually has gotten worse at getting a point out. When he wanted to cite Snopes fact checking Charlottesville at the Biden debate he couldn't quite land the point in a way where you knew what the hell he was talking about if you weren't already familiar with what he was trying to say.

He’s been living politics for so long now he assumes everyone else has a similar knowledge base.

I mean, Trump has a pretty unique cadence to his speech. It's always been a bit rambly, a bit non sequitur. The usual hallmarks of senility, the inability to hold a conversation thread, are kind of difficult to apply to Trump.

That said, when I have bothered to watch long form Trump speeches or interviews, while he's not at Biden levels of word salad and starring slack jawed into space, he's definitely lost a step from 2020. And he's lost a lot of energy and force from his performances since 2016. I was watching that clip of him talking about his brother on Theo Vonn's podcast, and while he was human and sincere in a way you rarely see politicians, he also told the same part of the story what felt like a dozen times, got distracted, repeated it again, etc, for like 15 minutes.

And like I said, that's kind of always been part of Trump. But like Biden's stubbornness, it seems cranked up to 11 as he nears the cusp of "If this were Grandpa, we wouldn't be letting him drive anymore".

I'm still voting for him. I don't think applying "cognitive decline" to him the way it was applied to Biden is remotely fair or honest. But it's also impossible to ignore that he's lost a step or three since 2016.

It doesn’t really work as a political ploy the way it does with Joe. Trump still seems to have some vitality. See his golf outing with the PGA star.

I do think it is fair to ask “what about in three years”

I hate to be pedantic but Bryson DeChambeau is not a PGA star. He's a former PGA Tour star, and possibly a LIV Golf star, if you're of the opinion that LIV Golf actually has stars.

Something tells me you don’t hate to be pedantic.

The bullet wasn't really a back and forth debate. Neither was Biden, speaking facetiously.

And if there's no decline, why does his team not want open mics for him?

Trump has been subjected to intense public scrutiny. He speaks in public over and over and over again. We know what it would look like if he were senile: his handlers would hide him from the public and run a front-porch campaign, as they did with Biden, as they're essentially doing with Kamala.

The mics were muted last time and the pundit consensus is that this was in Trump’s favor.

Agreed. I think Trump came off as less unhinged to the normies by waiting his turn. He didn't need to do anything because Biden sunk himself. Kamala can't talk off the cuff in a credible way as far as I've seen so the same strategy might pay out.

She is well known for having scolded previous participants including Mike Pence, so I strongly suspect the goal is to portray her dominance by both interrupting Trump and throw him off balance and theteby goading him into a nasty retort, and also to contemptuously scold him if he interrupts her. I'm sure the idea is to exploit female sympathy to the maximum extent possible. It didn't work that great for Clinton though, so I doubt it's worth the bad PR of reneging a fair agreement.

ETA: I previously stated that I much preferred the debate with no talking over and everyone I discussed it with expressed the same. They should keep to these rules purely for the benefit of the viewing public if nothing else.

I strongly suspect the goal is to portray her dominance by both interrupting Trump and throw him off balance and theteby goading him into a nasty retort, and also to contemptuously scold him if he interrupts her. I'm sure the idea is to exploit female sympathy to the maximum extent possible. It didn't work that great for Clinton though, so I doubt it's worth the bad PR of reneging a fair agreement.

I'm not so sure - when some researchers put on a genderflipped 2016 presidential debate, female!Trump, with all Trump's mannerisms and lines ("WRONG!") turned out to be incredibly popular, and male!Hillary was reported as “'really punchable' because of all the smiling." If Hilarie had acted more like Kamala proposes to ("I'm Speaking!") it may well have gone much better for her.

You know, when she scolded Mike pence she still lost- to both him and the fly landing on his head.

I’m pretty sure that dem staffers are up their own assholes in a media bubble, but I don’t think they’re that far up their assholes.

In what way did she lose?

Yeah, I'm not sure sounding like a scold is the win some think it is

It just leans into the further political polarization between men and women. Women overwhelmingly cheer a woman living out their "and everybody clapped" public humiliation fantasy against a boorish man. Men get PTSD flashbacks to all the normalized relational violence they've suffered. It's just going to be two screens the whole way down.

Eh, a brutal slugfest of talking over each other is probably better for Kamala than her uninterrupted rambling. But coming off as a bitch doesn’t endear her to the median woman- women are really harsh on each other.

Men get PTSD flashbacks to all the normalized relational violence they've suffered.

Can you please expand on this a bit? I’m not sure what you mean.

My read is that he's using 'violence' in the same way that campus protestors do, to mean things that make the accuser feel attacked. In this case, women humiliating their menfolk in public (which is obviously bad and can shade into abuse, but isn't violence).

Thanks!

My bad, I meant Relational Aggression. But no, I didn't make it up out of whole cloth.

Thanks!

What does "two screens" mean?

Two movies, one screen.

Yeah, WC got the expression pretty much backwards, but it's an established enough part of the lingo around here that I knew what he meant right away.

My impression is that her team think they can train her up with a few canned clapbacks (eg. “I’m speaking now” that @WhiningCoil mentioned below) that will please the base, and that maybe there’s the added bonus of interrupting a Trump ramble where he goes way off topic as he is wont to do with some kind of “Donald, what are you even saying?” question that might provoke him into getting mad or doing something stupid.

Kamala's singular successful quip is "I'm speaking now". If Trump never interrupts her, she never gets to girlboss him back and have everybody clap. In fact, having the microphones muted except when it's your turn to speak is even worse. I recall, possibly falsely, that during her debate with Pence in 2020 she got so in the rhythm of going "I'm speaking now" when Pence would interject, she started accidentally doing it when she was point of fact talking over Pence during his time to speak. And then everybody clapped.

Unironically, what would be Trump’s best response to “I’m speaking now”? If you were wargaming strategies with him, what advice would you give?

Is it just unbeatable because of the broader cultural optics? Part of the problem is that I have no idea what the psychological profile of an “undecided” voter could possibly look like at this point, so it’s hard to craft a strategy that could appeal to them (because winning over Kamala supporters in any non-negligible amount is a non-starter).

Part of the problem is that I have no idea what the psychological profile of an “undecided” voter could possibly look like at this point

A few I’ve spoken to(understand my filter bubble is not representative)

  • thinks Trump’s personal behavior is too much to look past, but also that democrats refusing to condemn after birth abortions is too. Generally trust Trump on the economy but thinks he’s likely a criminal.

  • thinks republicans are too socially conservative but doesn’t trust democrats not to make inflation way worse through shear incompetence. Antiwoke and anti war but moderate to liberal on most of the issues, including things like race and the border.

  • opposed to wars and likes trump on that basis, but scared of rate cuts and thinks democrats are less likely to push/enable the central bank. Thinks Trump won the 2020 election.

  • conspiracy theorist and major antisemite who opposes wars, wokeness, and an open border, but supports woke prosecution for no reason I can understand. Doesn’t expect trump to be better on the economy but is mostly center-right on social issues, except for far right on guns.

major antisemite but supports woke prosecution

Damn they should come in for an AMA.

Wild guess: Nation of Islam or similar background.

Nope, just conspiracy theorist. White claims-to-be-Cherokee, more or less consistent with his views that low level crime should be basically tolerated- he thinks the owner of a store should have carte Blanche to beat a thief but that the police shouldn’t be called. Oh, he's also a legalize-all-drugs, yes including the ones that kill you, type but he still doesn't like gays or abortion and supports strong religious liberty protections and lax homeschooling laws.

That’s consistent. I’d probably like the guy, even if the feeling’s not mutual.

Honestly I'm torn between wanting to see him post on the motte and not wanting to see competition with SS for most antisemitic motteizean.

“If you wanna speak then actually say something, Kamala”

Or perhaps a bit longer form:

“Kamala wants to speak? After refusing to give interviews alone? Well she’s been talking a lot tonight but she’s not saying anything in terms of policies. Not a thing. Very sad, you know, the American people want to know what your policies are, Kamala. They wanna know and you’re not telling them a thing. You can’t though because you do have a record. The Biden-Harris record, and it’s been a total disaster. You wanna run for President but you’re running away from your record. Which has been a complete horror show, so if you wanna speak then talk about the Afghanistan withdrawal or inflation or immigration. All disasters.”

If it were me I'd just break the fourth wall and point out that its literally her one move. Tell her to get it out of her system since she changed the debate rules to do it. Mime saying it with her since shes so predictible. If there were and audience I'd lead them in a mocking chant of it. Turn it into that Simpsons meme about Bart saying the line.

I say this like it'd be easy to do, and it probably wouldn't. You'd need the instincts and timing of a veteran performer. Lucky for Trump, while he's no Bill Burr or Tony Hinchcliffe, I'd still say he has better odds than most at pulling that off.

Yeah. The Chris Christie approach re Rubio. Basically “you had that one canned just like you did for Pence—do you have anything to say that isn’t preprogrammed and focus grouped? Do you have something genuine to tell the American people?”

a solution that occurs to me would be for him to just start saying "i'm speaking now" early and often as an interruption and also talking over any interruption she makes. after he's said it 10-20 times go back to business as usual. (and if she starts saying it, talk over her and say it at the same time)

I can see that being very effective. Even if you're not fond of girlbosses, not being able to hold your own in a debate is a very telling weakness.

This is just mind games. The Harris Campaign is using meaningless nitpicks to bait Trump into doing something stupid. I think this is an underrated strategy in general. It would be very bullish for Harris if the people in charge are this smart.

The catastrophically bad setup and staging of her recent interview suggest that this is not the case.

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