site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28318 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 23, 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.

Naturally, the right wing didn't stop for a second to acknowledge that the Biden DOJ has indicted a major D figure.

Part and parcel of a politics where even if opponents do something completely and unambiguously right (for once), it can't be acknowledged. Which is sad, because Adams had it coming and the DOJ was absolutely right to indict him (and Hunter Biden while we're at it).

DOJ was absolutely right to indict him (and Hunter Biden while we're at it).

DOJ slow-walked the investigation so certain crimes would reach statute of limitations, indicted when they could no longer put off indicting (because Hunter kept committing embarrassing gun crimes) then gave Hunter a sweetheart plea deal that only fell through when a judge refused to rubber stamp it. DOJ gets no credit here.

Naturally, the right wing didn't stop for a second to acknowledge that the Biden DOJ has indicted a major D figure.

You could just as easily take this the other way, right wing sides with a major D figure for once.

You could just as easily take this the other way, right wing sides with a major D figure for once.

If that's the case, it's the absolutely most retarded choice.

This is a story about a Democrat mayor getting indicted under a Democrat politician, and you're whining about Republicans.

I will say that the main counterargument I’ve seen on the right is that Adams was indicted precisely because he has defied the Biden administration on immigration and policing. He notably said at a public event that the mass influx of “asylum seekers” into NYC would “destroy this city.” He will also, if removed from office, be replaced (pending a new election) by a very far-left black anti-police extremist named Juwaane Williams; this has led some to believe that Adams is being cleared out precisely to allow Williams’ ascent.

Doubt, but with sufficient room to be convinced if there's evidence.

In particular, the timelines don't make sense. The comments on fake asylum seekers are after many of the matters in the indictment.

The theory here is more along the lines that every major political figure is guilty of something, especially in a city like New York. The feds can pick and choose prosecutions if someone is perceived as worth targeting.

But the flip side is that this particular stuff Adams is alleged to have done is hilariously bad. Now, so is what a lot of the other politicians in New York have done, and at least Adams (probably?) didn't kill hundreds or thousands and try to cover it up afterwards.

((But the Adams admin has what looks to be especially damning records and attempts to destroy those records, with unusually clear theory of law. But we wouldn't know, since we don't have access to the internals of investigations against these politicians, and especially don't have access to the internal records from a complete investigation.))

On the gripping hand, the theory is unfalsifiable in the derogatory sense.

Broadly agree.

I guess I think the statement "the feds can pick and choose prosecution" needs elaboration -- do they already investigate everyone so they have dirt pre-made before they are chosen? That kind of thing seems difficult to keep under wraps -- it's not like you can have an official marker on the file that tells middle management "not for prosecution until he steps on the wrong rail", so you run the risk of someone taking it at face value. And in the worst case, the next admin can come in and actually use it.

I mean, on the other hand, his path to survival is pulling an Eric Johnson. Politically driven railroading probably isn't aimed at doing that.

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