site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33194 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 10, 2022

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.

23
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Biden will say during press conferences that he is not allowed to answer questions, and sometimes I wonder if this is a cry for help.

The politicians I managed at one point, never said that on camera, but they very definitely got strong notes from me saying things like "DO NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION!!!!!!!. Pivot to talking about taxes/record on whatever etc).

Could they override me, sure. Though given I was employed by the party ignoring me, meant ignoring their own party which could be a bad idea.

I am not allowed to by my public relations team (because it is a bad look) is different than I am not allowed to by my mysterious puppet masters.

I have actually met Biden a couple of times (long before he was president) and he did have a habit of kind of gesturing behind the curtain which kind of fit with his folksy quasi-honesty look. Whether it plays well as President seems more of a stretch. If I was part of his team I would probably me rubbing my temples every time he did that. But maybe it is supposed to play in a kind if "I could tell you but then I would have to shoot you"

This might change my mind. Thanks.

A president being bound by administration public relations plans hammered out in advance (especially when the President is, like Biden, known to freelance, make shit up, or just misspeak embarrasingly), is not the same as that same president not having the final say over what the substance of policy is.

I'm open to alternate interpretations, but I can't think of a more plausible one offhand.

I mean, sure, we could go with "the poor dear doesn't know what he's saying, how ridiculous," but...uh...not a winning move, that one.

The alternative is the kind of "married jokes" people make where a man says "I better ask my boss if I can go out to the sports bar tonight." Meaning his wife.

It's still weird for the President to say that but it's a joke in that manner of a man pretending to lack agency or assigning it to his wife.

It doesn't land well but that's the best blue tribe explanation I can think of. It also has the virtue of being the opposite of Trump, who would never pretend to lack agency.

It would be a situation similar to the wife joke if the wife wrote cues on cards to the guy when he is interacting with the other guys and also physically pulling him away from them.

And if the guy started to wander in the wrong direction and shake invisible people's hands without the wife by his side.

I agree with you. Just giving the best blue tribe apologetics for Biden.

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