site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   33226 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.

Chait points to rhetoric which, on the surface, suggests the right may drop its support for economically conservative policies, but he argues that it's tailored for dealing with the specific things these conservatives don't like, as opposed to some general/coherent economic policy or policies.

Yes. Politics is inherently tribal now, in the general case. Tribes have enemies. Social and political power exists to be wielded against those enemies. Moderates claimed otherwise, and lost everywhere that mattered. So this is how it goes from here.

None of the panelists are willing to affirm if they think Biden won the election fairly, which Chait takes as proof that their private views will not get in the way of them trying to use the energy the 2020 election provides.

My general impression is that you think that as long as the ballot boxes weren't stuffed, it was a fair election. I disagree, given the evidence discussed in this forum previously. Still, people generally know when they're being screwed, whether they can prove it or not, whether they can even articulate it or not. Reds know they were screwed, and so they're in the process of rejecting the legitimacy of our existing political and social institutions. They are right to do so, in my view, and right in the general estimation at how they arrived in this state. Given the givens, cooperation across the political divide does not make sense. Blues, collectively speaking, are not trustworthy partners. Conflict will continue to spiral inexorably.

What happens?

We take the first step toward systemic organization against the Journalist class. We mainstream the idea, among Reds, that Blue journalism is not an institution worthy of respect, status, or special accommodation within our political, legal and social systems. Hopefully we can find a way to dissolve their power and influence before they do more harm than they already have. Making their status a tribal battleground, and then forcing moderates to defend their utterly indefensible behavior, day after day, indefinitely, seems like a way to start. Reject the pretense that they are anything approaching a shared institution, bring down the cordon sanitaire, and force those who ignore it to take responsibility for the woeful results.

CNN will tell you what DeSantis told his favored journalist and continue on without pause.

This is, regrettably, true. What's your proposed alternative? Like, do you even recognize the general scope of the problem, the stakes that are being addressed? We're a bit past elderly relatives talking about the "dadgum liberal media" here. The Press, as a class, chose a side, and they have been prosecuting the culture war to the hilt for at least a decade, and arguably much longer. Lies they tell directly shape our nation. People die based on what they say. People go to war based on what they say. They are, inarguably, an activist political class, operating with vast resources and zero accountability, who have abused their position in too many ways to count and for far, far too long.

Do you understand that the people Chait is condemning, are the people trying to work alternatives within the system? That they're the closest thing to a friend that exists across that divide? They're the ones riding the wave, not the ones generating it. They're the ones attempting to direct it down the existing social and political channels. When they lose, and I think we can both agree that their loss is likely, the tribal warfare doesn't magically poof out of existence.

That said, there is a logic in pointing out that political groups often given a guide to the various enemies they have on who to collaborate with.

It is difficult to overstate my agreement. If you wouldn't mind elaborating, let's suppose they're actually courting the traditional anti-vaxxers. How bad a thing is that, and how seriously should we take it, in your view?

My general impression is that you think that as long as the ballot boxes weren't stuffed, it was a fair election.

I have no idea why you'd think this, given that I'm been fairly silent on the question of whether the 2020 election was fair or not. I'm summarizing Chait's views here.

This is, regrettably, true. What's your proposed alternative? Like, do you even recognize the general scope of the problem, the stakes that are being addressed?

Again with the hostility. My point is that Pushaw's plan is simply too limited to do what she wants. I think this won't even be the chip you're trying to paint it as. It could be if used in tandem with stronger and broader measures.

It is difficult to overstate my agreement. If you wouldn't mind elaborating, let's suppose they're actually courting the traditional anti-vaxxers. How bad a thing is that, and how seriously should we take it, in your view?

I have no real thoughts on that right now.

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