site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   33970 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 9, 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.

Why bring up the Springfield pets thing? That's another highly online issue that plays weird to normies.

The odds aren't low that, somewhere in the midwest, they can find an immigrant (or the child of immigrants, England has shown us that's close enough) who did something that vaguely looks like eating a dog or cat. In any sufficiently large group it will happen. And Democrats are going so all-in on denying everything, that there's no room to retreat. All you need is a black guy with a funny name being charged with animal abuse two towns over from Springfield, and the conservative media establishment will blast it to the sky.

That said, far more concerning to me is that Trump's campaign owes money to venues for unpaid bills from years ago, and increasing stories of campaign dysfunction and infighting with funds misappropriated to be spent on legal fees.

I've been wrong about him before, Trump always has a puncher's chance, but I share your feelings of why? Why, in eight years, haven't MAGA Republicans built any real organization outside of Trump's personality? Why, in eight years, is there no political heir to Trumpism? Why, in eight years, isn't there a policy apparatus behind Trump that Trump won't disavow? Why, in eight years, do we lack any MAGA candidates in the Capitol or Governor's Mansions who aren't complete weirdoes?

Why, in eight years, haven't MAGA Republicans built any real organization outside of Trump's personality?

Because the footsoldiers and bureaucrats who build those organizations (attorneys, accountants, policy-wonks and other recent elite-college grads willing to swallow low salaries in exchange for proximity to power and influence) are overwhelmingly not MAGA, and even not Republican.

Why, in eight years, is there no political heir to Trumpism?

Because Trump has a lot more name-recognition than any other politician, and has a plurality of personal loyalists. He's also very good at attacking rivals, gets basically infinite amounts of free media from mainstream and liberal outlets horrified by him (but who don't realize that their coverage backfires and helps Trump with his base), and the people who rose to challenge him are either out-of-step with the modern conservative electorate (Nikki Haley) or too-online and actually not all that charismatic (DeSantis)

Why, in eight years, isn't there a policy apparatus behind Trump that Trump won't disavow?

Because that would tie Trump to something that he didn't dream up, and his personal policy is basically an anti-NAFTA 1980's Blue Dog Democrat. His genius, such as it is, lies in realizing that policy rhetoric doesn't actually matter all that much.

Why, in eight years, do we lack any MAGA candidates in the Capitol or Governor's Mansions who aren't complete weirdoes?

Because MAGA is so incredibly low-status among wealthy and white-collar folks that only the complete weirdoes are willing to tie themselves to it. Also, Trump has a bad habit of cannibalizing his own supporters to buoy his own efforts. (Does DeSantis count as a weirdo in your view? If so, he's awfully effective for a weirdo)

Desantis we could probably argue over. I counted him as outside of full MAGA, but I might be exaggerating the differences between him and Trump after the primary. Trump hasn't, to my knowledge, been grooming him as an insider in his campaign. But you're right, they're probably closer together than I thought at first.

The number of Trump henchmen who wind up indicted is somewhat startling, and might deter some people. But electoral politics, contra Nate Silver, selects for risk takers.

DeSantis' problem is that he assumed that Trump had self-destructed on Jan 6th 2021 and was planning to succeed him, not to replace him. Had Trump not run, I think this would have worked and DeSantis would have been the nominee with broad MAGA support. But (at least from the perspective of Republican primary voters) Trump hadn't self-destructed and DeSantis acting as if he had was seen as disloyalty. In Q4 2023 DeSantis is very clearly floundering because he doesn't know whether he is doing a Vivek-style understudy run to position himself if Trump has a stroke before the election, or if he is running to beat Trump.

In other words, MAGA rejected DeSantis, not the other way round.

My model for DeSantis is that he was preparing into March or April of 2024 at least competitive, and hoping to consolidate the other non-Trump candidates as they started to drop out. His initial model had been MAGA-y but-competent, intending to pivot to slamming Trump once some big enough scandal hit to kinda force that, preferably something that let him emphasis the competent bit without having to step too specifically against conservative or MAGA positions.

And the first big scandal that hit in that time frame was the Bragg Indictment.

elite-college grads willing to swallow low salaries in exchange for proximity to power and influence

Yes and as many people (including most eloquently TracingWoodgrains) have said, until you fix this problem the right is screwed in the US.

Allexis Telia Ferrell ate a cat in public in Ohio. However, she was born in the United States, and this seems more likely a mental health problem than a cultural difference.

I'm sure given the urge to dig around enough they'll find something. I'd bet I find somebody in the Poconos and upstate NY and WV and Maine who have kidnapped and tortured or eaten cats.

I can tell the story here anonymously: a "ritually tortured dog" story popped up in our town a few years back after a dog was found dead in a field... It was a coyote that a friend of mine had shot because it was sneaking around the chickens. They'll find something.

Today already I've made the joke "that's what happened to all our feral cats" and "can we tell that warehouse to hire some Haitians to deal with the geese in their retention pond?"

All through my childhood the stories of people supposedly kidnapping or mutilating animals were all, as far as I know, fictitious. But it was a common enough type of rumour that you'd hear it every couple of years - yeah my friend says that his older brother found this dog that was all slashed up with a knife. They think some kid in the neighbourhood is doing it.

That being said the next neighbourhood over from me in Toronto is currently dealing with an actual teenage catkiller at the moment, so this particular story has finally had a proven example for me.

I’m a bit more credulous of these claims given how recently animal torture was just a widespread form of entertainment.

Cats especially seemed to get marked for terrible deaths just for a laugh. Cat burnings, cat drownings. Politicians standing for election in England used to get pummeled with dead cats when the crowd turned against them.

Cats especially seemed to get marked for terrible deaths just for a laugh.

To be fair, these laughs can be substantial.

Our own little RFKII stories I guess.

I think this ground has been trod over here and even by some radio news outfits I listen to. There simply isn't an elite pipeline that can deliver normal candidates with good educations and strong bona fides to the top of the republican ticket that can also appeal to the MAGA crowd. Repubs still do fine in local elections in many areas and have developed such a pipeline in the federalist society for court appointments. Democrats certainly have their race grifters, but repubs let in actual grifters time and time again even when it is obvious. There is just such a huge disconnect between MAGA and republicans like Mitt and the old guard. I mean the Republican MAGA presidential candidate is on TV rambling about Haitians eating dog meat in Ohio, and some people here will say, "well he is directionally correct". The fish is rotting from the head down.

It’s more that it’s fragmented. DeSantis, Vance and many others on the populist (rather than Chamber of Commerce / Wall St / Mormon / Evangelical) wing of the party went to Yale/Harvard/Stanford, served in the military, have elite resumes. But they’re all outliers. The Dems pump out thousands of elite grads each year who get parachuted into the D.C. / media / staffer / NGO / think tank / civil service sphere. Young right wing men who graduate elite universities go into finance or tech almost to the man. A few who truly ‘believe’ (often religious Christian conservatives, who have their differences with Trumpism) become lawyers, clerk for conservative justices and then still mostly go into big law for the money.

The irony is that socialism would be the best thing to happen to the US right because it might make finance and tech less lucrative, thus allowing for some brainpower to be redeployed to politics.

One silver lining for Republicans, according to that model, is that they're at least well funded by donations from smart right-wingers who make it big in the fields you mentioned (at least in finance and business).

It's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of government money laundered through NGOs and contracts back to the DNC.

The problem is threefold -

1.) Money hits a saturation point - ask any resident of Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc.

2.) ActBlue does a better fundraising job at times for Democrat's and is a better gauge on enthusiasm than 14 rich people.

3.) Those rich right-wing donors get Republicans to support unpopular things like continue tax cuts, abortion bans, or allow unpopular candidates to win primaries because they manage to find a political sugar daddy.

Ironically, the GOP would be better off under European-style campaigning, assuming no other changes, where there are no primaries, campaigns are limited, and actually financially restrained.

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