site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28014 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 7, 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.

Vance made an excellent point. I’ve made a similar point on this forum. There’s nothing bonkers about his argument.

(A) Democracy requires informed voters and free exchange of political ideas.

(B) It’s probable that 99% of all political idea exchange in America occurs on major social media companies. It may be as high as 99.99%.

(C) Default social media companies conspiring to hide essential political information in order to sway voters breaks the substance of democracy, which is related to [A] above.

(D) When one party breaks the substance of democracy, it’s a perfectly legitimate and moral reply to break it to your own advantage as well. This is mere self-defense.

Can you imagine Ben Franklin […]

Ben lived in a time where 99% of political idea exchange occurred in bars, coffee shops, and town halls. If he were prevented from talking politics in these places then he would have revolted. Nowadays that political activity occurs on a handful of websites. If Ben were alive today he would agree with Vance. He revolted for less significant reason in fact, involving representation and taxes, which was surely illegal according to the letter of the law (but not the spirit of liberty). Ben’s friends would agree with me on (A), in all of their writings on democracy they assume an informed populace.

There’s nothing bonkers about his argument.

There is indeed nothing bonkers about that argument.

That's just not Trump's argument about 2020, and neither is it what Vance was asked about. Vance was doing this - answering a different question, which he could answer credibly.

The question

Senator, would you have certified the election in 2020, yes or no?

was answered in his own unique away. Journalists aren’t some honorbound, virtue-trained caste of monks whose purehearted questioning must be answered like Job in the face of Jehovah. They would be a little bit below prostitutes in Dante’s inferno. They are disreputable and untrustworthy according to citizens. The American public is interested in “who is harming democracy”, and Vance answered that concern. Vance’s answer isn’t Trump’s, but Vance is clearly a more sophisticated thinker / propagandist than Trump.

I didn't say anythin about the character of journalists, so I don't see whythat's relevant. I am, however, going to have to accuse you of selective misquotation. The transcript of the interview is here. Here's the whole exchange (journalist in bold, Vance in normal script):

Last few questions. In the debate, you were asked to clarify if you believe Trump lost the 2020 election. Do you believe he lost the 2020 election? I think that Donald Trump and I have both raised a number of issues with the 2020 election, but we’re focused on the future. I think there’s an obsession here with focusing on 2020. I’m much more worried about what happened after 2020, which is a wide-open border, groceries that are unaffordable. And look, Lulu —

Senator, yes or no. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Let me ask you a question. Is it OK that big technology companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, which independent analysis have said cost Donald Trump millions of votes?

Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Did big technology companies censor a story that independent studies have suggested would have cost Trump millions of votes? I think that’s the question.

Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? And I’ve answered your question with another question. You answer my question and I’ll answer yours.

I have asked this question repeatedly. It is something that is very important for the American people to know. There is no proof, legal or otherwise, that Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 election. But you’re repeating a slogan rather than engaging with what I’m saying, which is that when our own technology firms engage in industrial-scale censorship — by the way, backed up by the federal government — in a way that independent studies suggest affect the votes. I’m worried about Americans who feel like there were problems in 2020. I’m not worried about this slogan that people throw: Well, every court case went this way. I’m talking about something very discrete, a problem of censorship in this country that I do think affected things in 2020. And more importantly, that led to Kamala Harris’s governance, which has screwed this country up in a big way.

Senator, would you have certified the election in 2020? Yes or no? I’ve said that I would have voted against certification because of the concern that I just raised. I think that when you have technology companies —

The answer is no. When you have technology companies censoring Americans at a mass scale in a way that, again, independent studies have suggested affect the vote. I think that it’s right to protest against that, to criticize that, and that’s a totally reasonable thing.

So the answer is no.

Vance was asked four times, very explicitly, "did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?", and he evaded answering that question.

Is the statement that Vance actually made reasonable? Yes, I think so, and I've said that repeatedly. The argument that there isn't a fair or level playing field in terms of US elections, and that technology firms engaged in a kind of censorship such that, had it not been present, the results might have been different - that argument is fair enough.

But it is not what Vance was asked about.

It is a dodge, because, as I just said, Vance cannot safely answer that question. Either "yes" or "no" get him into trouble, so he avoids it.

If we are being pedantic, Vance answered a specific question about whether he would certify the vote. That’s not the same question as the related previous questions. He explained why he may not certify the vote, or why he would protest the certification of the vote. You can criticize him for the previous interview questions which were not the subject of the OP, though. But “neither is it what Vance was asked about” is incorrect.

It's all the one line of questioning - it's all the same dodge, it seems to me. The fifth question being slightly different doesn't erase the context of that answer, and I still object to "but big tech" being used as a motte to defend the bailey of "Trump didn't lose 2020".

And I'm trying to implore you that every time someone spergs out on (D), it's undermining the case for (A-C) by association and scaring the hoes normies. No one is ever going to accept "my opponent tricked the populace into voting for him, therefore I can disregard the will of the people manifest through the ballot".

And if at all this does somehow get accepted, it's 10x more likely to be deployed by the left and their TDS anyway. They've certainly parroted this 1000 times since 2016 about fascism and the end of democracy, maybe those brain worms have come home to roost.

disregard the will of the people manifest through the ballot".

Independent watchdog NGOs routinely declare elections flawed or invalid because of censorship. Even granting that the mechanics of ballots were fair, the insistance on only caring about it in an election is begging the question, if the people were prevented from informing themselves, their alleged "will" or consent is with defect. Like with a contract: if I deceived you, you may be able to render it void, even if you agree that the blue lines at the bottom are your signature with your own hand.

Independent watchdog NGOs routinely declare elections flawed or invalid because of censorship

Do you have an example? I don't really follow election watchdogs, so I never heard of one complaining about censorship, but it would be funny to compare and contrast with western elections.

"my opponent tricked the populace into voting for him, therefore I can disregard the will of the people manifest through the ballot"

And there were prominent calls for faithless electors in 2016. So this isn't even a hypothetical, it's practically the first thing some Democrats called for when faced with a Trump presidency.

And there were prominent calls for faithless electors in 2016. So this isn't even a hypothetical, it's practically the first thing some Democrats called for when faced with a Trump presidency.

And that's the crux of the issue isnt it? (pinging @Tiber727 and others)

To me most of the complaints about Trump's "norm shattering" behavior effectively boil down to Trump treating his opponents the way Clinton and Obama treated thier opponents. The norm being shattered here is that Republicans are supposed to be stoic patricician types who cooperate when thier opponents defect, and "turn the other cheek" instead of "getting in people's faces" and "punching back twice as hard".

That doesn't make him a good politician or mean that he is going to win the election, (in fact i am almost certain he wont) but i cant really judge him for it either. Afterall, turn about is fair play.

I recall criticizing that too :-)

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