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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
One of the things that alienates educated Westerners from Trump is the way that he talks. He hardly ever talks in abstract terms. He doesn't qualify or hedge; everything is direct and concrete. Rather than say that he was on one of the later episodes of Oprah's show when they were coming to an end, he will say he was on the last episode. He won't just say that one of Lincoln's sons died, but instead he will name that son Tad. He's always including specific details that he misremembers or aren't all that important. He can't just say that people like Liz Cheney send people into warzones but will never face any real danger themselves, but rather he makes that idea concrete by describing [EDITED] her being pushed onto the frontlines to face death against an overwhelming force. One of the worst parts of his interview with Rogan was when he forgot the name of a boxer in his story. Usually, he would just throw in some name that sounded about right and run with it. However, this time, he didn't, and he tried to talk about "the guy" and the whole story fell to pieces in a mess of vague referents.
I think this is why Trump actually has a lot of cross-cultural appeal, because it's the educated Westerners who are strange. Most people aren't very good at thinking and talking in lawyerly abstractions, studiously avoiding any implication that might not hold up in court. For most of human history, people have used stories about specific people, in specific places, and about specific events to communicate general ideas about society, politics, morality, and even science. Most people aren't good at remembering abstract statements about general categories. However, give them a story fleshed out with questionable details, and they'll remember the gist even after they've forgotten most everything else. Educated Westerners are very good at communicating in abstractions, and they expect their audience to infer details from context. For many people, this kind of speaking might as well be in some kind of secret code language.
One of the most charismatic storytellers I know is an old Christian missionary women who would abhor the thought of voting for Trump, but she is very much like him in personality. She has made her entire life out of convincing people to fund her charitable missionary work. She has an incredible capacity to reach across national, ethnic, and cultural boundaries and communicate with so many different types of people, and she talks just like Trump. Her stories are all too good to be true, and that's because they're not, at least not literally. She didn't really escape from a country descending into civil war on the very last flight out of the airport. The miracles and coincidences in her stories were not really quite so serendipitous or unexpected as she makes them sound. She always embellishes with details that are often lazily misremembered or merged from other events. I don't think for a moment she is trying to be manipulative or deceitful, because she implicitly expects her audience to extract the general meaning from the particulars. The specific names, times, and places are used as placeholders, either approximately true or for illustrative purposes. She does not seem to know how to communicate in any other way.
What's interesting about Trump is that he can't turn this off either. He can't code switch between the two different ways of communicating, and it continually suprises him when he is misinterpreted. This is, I think, one of the reasons he comes across as stupid to educated Westerners, because to them this kind of communication is associated with stupid people. And they're not wrong--this is how stupid people communicate abstract ideas. However, not everyone who commicates like this is stupid, and perhaps most people in the world prefer this way.
I'm sure he's more articulate in business or private. also he's probably not as sharp as he was , so he's more forgetful and like Biden has trouble finding the right word or names. Being misinterpreted easily is not always a bad thing as a public figure when communicating to the public. It makes it harder to attacks to stick. With trump you never know if he's being serious or hyperbole, so it keeps everyone guessing. To his supporters, they decode his language. To everyone else they are either offended or confused, which was the point.
More options
Context Copy link
I think honestly it’s one of the things I like about the modern era that’s most bizarre about the current crop of elite. Not only do these guys speak an odd dialect of lawyer, but they’re fantastically uneducated about how anything is actually done or made. And it is off putting to average people because they don’t hide behind statistics and spreadsheets. They do things, make things, and watch or play games.
It’s like if I had a bookie describe the last game of the World Series, and then a plumber from Brooklyn. They’d both be describing the same events but only one guy would have described a baseball game. The other guy is describing a graph describing the baseball game. And I think that’s actually why the elites running the systems cannot fix things. The old deep knowledge of the processes their graphs and lawyered language describe is gone. They’ve never done any of that kind of work, nor, increasingly do they even know anyone who does that work. Without knowing how the game of baseball actually is played, without knowing what is going on on the field, moneyball simply doesn’t work.
And I think this is what people are reacting to. Trump at least comes across as the guy who actually understands baseball instead of baseball statistics. They have plenty of real life experience of working with idiots who only see the world through screens. Those people might be educated, as in having attended a lot of very expensive colleges and having a couple of $100K sheepskins on the wall. But talk to anyone in the trenches of any operation and it’s pretty universal that the spreadsheet jockeys often make arbitrary decisions that make their job harder to impossible. The general problem for a lot of ground level managers is to make it look like they’re following the new, stupid procedures dictated by a spreadsheet jockey, while still getting productive work actually done. They’re used to idiots who talk like Harris, and they know her practical knowledge of the stuff she has policies for is precisely as bad as the local regional manager o& their corporate masters— she looks at graphs and knows the graphs go up if you do a thing.
I’m not sure that it’s a communication problem at all. The problem for the elites is that the culturally coded language they use bespeaks of their ignorance. Nobody takes them seriously because not only do they mistake their maps as territory, but it’s often the case that the6 have no idea there’s a real territory out there being impacted. We can just make fossil fuels a thing of the past, without using nuclear. Just look at my graph.
I think this has also enshittened movies. When I watch movies made before 20 years ago, they seem like they were made by people who had life experience outside of filmmaking and celebrity scenes. Which is maybe strange, because Hollywood has been very nepotistic since the moment it came into being. But for whatever reason, Hollywood used to pull in more talent who had experience with life outside movies. There were soldiers, blue collar people, hippies, wild politically unorthodox guys like John Milius, and all sorts of other kinds of people who got into the film industry. When I watch modern film, on the other hand, I often feel like I am watching something made by people whose life experience consists of watching other movies and going to parties in New York and Los Angeles.
I could be biased, maybe my political opinions are filtering into my perception of movies. But this is how it feels to me.
More options
Context Copy link
Fix what? Elites developed the policy that solved the 2008 mortgage crisis as the rest of the world struggled. The zero-interest rate policy and QE has since been copied by other central banks. It was not elites who were buying those mc mansions with 0-money down. Same for Covid vaccines.
Elon Musk is technically is an elite and has contributed greatly to society. Society is not going to solve difficult problems like space travel using only ordinary people. Difficult coordination problems require elites. Sometimes the public isn't always owed an explanation or it would be against the interests of national security, like the Manhattan Project.
Dollars to donuts Elon had a summer job shovelling shit or picking apples at some point -- Kamala seems to be kind of an early adopter on this sort of thing being Just Not Done for aspiring white-collar climbers, to the point where not only does she need to make up a story about working at McDonalds, McDonalds is the shittiest job she can even think of to lie about.
Trump probably never had to literally lay bricks or whatever, but based on how much he seems to enjoy hanging around with garbagemen and workers at his hotels, it's a good bet that he's done quite a bit of shit-shooting with the pointy end of his construction crews as well.
More options
Context Copy link
Which is the more central example of our Elites as a class: Musk, or the management of Boeing? Would you say that Boeing has demonstrated a solid track record of solving difficult problems?
Like everything, it's hit or miss. Elites being necessary doesn't imply all elites are good or competent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How to fix the Ivy Leagues: require every student to have held a non-intern job earning no more than 2x minimum wage for their locale for no less than six months.
The silver spoon people from what I have observed are sometimes more humble or nicer than the pulled-myself-up people. People have it reversed for some reason, maybe due to pop culture. The silver spoon people know they are already at a big advantage starting out in life, so they understand that luck plays a huge role. A McDonald's stint will not change this. The pulled-myself-up people already had stints in bad jobs. It's quite common for people who start at the lower rungs and then move to the top to become detached, not those who start at the top.
More options
Context Copy link
A better way to fix the Ivies would be to ban legacy admissions.
But really, that would just eliminate the Ivies, as the whole point of them is for the children of uber-elites to network with other children of uber-elites (and a few token minorities so the brochures don’t look too white) in the company of experts who can connect them to major industries. They’re not looking for smart people, specifically, they’re looking for high-IQ go-getters who are so type A that their type A-ness is literally more pronounced than their IQ. They’re not looking for nerds, they’re looking for chads. That’s why they cling insistently to “holistic admissions”, because it’s important to them that their admits aren’t just smart, but gifted in many other ways.
I would much rather we separate the finishing schools for elite children from our institutions of knowledge, but things are they way they are for the simple reason that knowledge isn’t power; power is knowledge. Everything is kayfabe and the humanities are word games, which is why the only fields who have major institutions that are looking for nerds lay in STEM, where “reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
or even better, companies should stop requiring degrees for everything unless the job necessitates it , like being a doctor
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wealthy parents will gladly have their kid work at McDonald’s for 6 months to go to Harvard, that wouldn’t stop anyone.
McDonald's would build a restaurant near Harvard in a wealthy area and the manager (probably an elite who would usually not actually be present at the restaurant -- some middle class schlub would be hired as assistant manager to actually run things) would in practice only require well-connected prospective Harvard student employees to show up on a single day in their 6 month shift and excuse all other absences. It would just become another node in the elite influence and favor trading network. You would need a powerful sovereign of some sort to actually impose this on the rich and well-connected.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think the idea is to stop anyone, but rather have them do non abstract work like flipping burgers and learn the culture and average intelligence of the public and fast food coworkers rather than remain in their high IQ bubble
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He did no such thing.
Here's what he said:
Nobody gives the condemned a rifle. Ergo, he was not describing a firing squad.
He was describing her alone and outnumbered in the face of the enemy. Not a firing squad, which is for executions.
You are correct, but it doesn't really change my point very much (ironically).
Puts him in pretty good company I guess:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JEmI_FT4YHU
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, she is literally financially incentivized to lie and embellish. I understand why you would give her the benefit of the doubt because you know her and you respect her motives. But a person like this is inherently impossible to fully trust, because one can never be sure which components of a statement she makes are true, embellished, misremembered, or outright intentionally fabricated. This might be an endearing personality type to have a conversation with, but can you understand why this is a very dangerous personality type to entrust with significant power?
Absolutely, but there are also failure modes to other ways of communicating. Almost all Western politicians are comfortable speaking in lawyerly abstractions, but do you trust them? No, you don't, but you're used to reverse-engineering their words, because you know the word game they're playing. If you're smart, then you can even beat them at this game by twisting their words back on them or holding them to an unintended meaning (e.g. malicious compliance). There is no doubt that Trump's communication style can be exploited to mislead people, but that does not make it unique. I think most ordinary people find Trump's style easier to "reverse-engineer", and so they perceive him as being less misleading than the politician who speaks in technically true abstractions.
Okay but if an average politician makes a specific claim, I can at least assess whether I find that claim persuasive. When they quote a figure at me, or speak about some specific action that was taken, I can easily cross-reference that information to discover the context of what’s being discussed; normal politicians rarely just make up figures, or say things happened when in fact they didn’t happen at all. They might not be giving me the whole story, but I can generally be confident that they’re not telling me a made-up story. At worst they are omitting important context and/or alternate interpretations of the facts they’re discussing. They’re not just making up names, dates, events, etc.
Trump, in contrast, sometimes speaks in such an elliptical and non-specific way that it can be impossible to determine what specific event he’s referring to, or what specific claim he’s actually making. The details he brings up might be half-remembered, or mistaken, or he might be conflating two different things. This is tolerable if it’s some personal anecdote, but if he’s discussing an important matter of political fact, it’s actually really important for him to get all the details right, so that his constituents know what he’s actually talking about. I would rather a politician tell me something true but incomplete/misleading, rather than tell me something false but directionally correct.
How many examples of "average politicians" telling made-up stories would be required to shift your prior here? "Putin is blackmailing Trump with tapes of him being urinated on by Russian Prostitutes" and "Russia hacked election machines in 2016 to secure a Trump victory" and "The Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian disinformation campaign" are three obvious examples of made-up stories promulgated by those you seem to be classifying as "average politicians", and they were not even "directionally" correct. I am pretty sure that I could add dozens more examples from the last few years with minimal effort.
It seems to me that, moving beyond questions of aesthetics, this preference grounds out on quantifiable concrete outcomes. That is, we can actually look at population-level beliefs, and we can track those population-level beliefs to the statements of political actors that formed and broadcasted the message that gave rise to them.
This is one of my favorite graphs. It's a measure of population-level beliefs about an objective, factual question of immediate and undeniable salience to the political realities of our nation. It seems to me that the shape of this graph was directly created by the "normal politician" style of discourse which you are arguing for, and the consequences were likewise quite direct: a massive increase in violent crime nation-wide. More damningly, it seems trivial to me to demonstrate how obvious "made up stories" spun off and achieved virality directly from those "normal politician"-style claims.
What I see in that graph is an obvious example of a completely compromised epistemic environment, one where the center of gravity of the consensus narrative is completely detached from objective reality. And it seems to me that such epistemic compromise is hardly an isolated occurrence, and is in fact the norm across much of the policy space, from foreign affairs to educational policy to gun politics to abortion to the status of the federal bureaucracy and so on. If one accepts that broad epistemic corruption as a given, I'm at a loss to understand why you prefer the style that produces such woeful outcomes.
So, of these examples, I do agree that two of them - the Russiagate stuff and the Hunter laptop - were essentially made-up stories promulgated by actual politicians. The hacked voting machines thing is not, as far as I recall, something any actual elected officials claimed. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) Look, I was incredibly radicalized by Russiagate. It was one of the major things, along with the mass delusions about BLM which you highlight later in your post (a well-chosen example particularly given your interlocutor), that turned me against the progressive media establishment. I fully agree that they were scandalous lies which should have led to imprisonments. And to be clear, Republicans are not spared - I imagine that the WMD lie in the lead-up to the Iraq War is one of the other examples you had on hand.
I will not pretend that aesthetics do not play a major part here. @nomenym is correct that the way Donald Trump speaks is highly reminiscent of the way stupid people speak, and I do not want my President to sound like a stupid person. This is a powerful and viscerally-felt pre-rational preference for me, and it certainly colors the way I have experienced the Trump phenomenon over the past 9 years.
The way that, say, Richard Nixon spoke is the way a leader would speak to intelligent and well-informed populace with the wherewithal to directly assess the veracity of his claims and draw the appropriate conclusions. When a politician makes specific and falsifiable claims, I can use my own judgment and do my own research; if I determine that what he or she said was misleading or incomplete, I can punish him or her accordingly with my vote, and I can gather more information myself in order to figure out whose claims to credit in the future. Whereas with a president who is a bullshitter, I have no way to confidently assess whether what he said was even intended to be taken seriously in the first place. His supporters may not believe in some of the outrageously false things his opponents do, but I still believe that they are on average less well-informed about the world and about how the government works, even if this still ends up cashing out with them having better object-level policy preferences.
In no way am I suggesting that Kamala Harris speaks to the public that way. She is scarcely more well-informed than the lowest common denominator member of the public to whom she’s speaking. And even as I’m enumerating the qualities I long for in a politician, I recognize how doe-eyed and naïve I must sound to someone who has already given up on the future of the American regime to the extent you have.
More options
Context Copy link
"The Hunter Biden laptop is a Russian disinformation campaign" was actually "The Hunter Biden laptop has the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign". Often they are not straight up lying but saying something that is technically true but designed in a way to mislead their audience into believing something that is false. I think if you consciously do this it is not any different from lying. It's like these people running scams on Amazon where they sell you the box but not the thing inside the box but then claim its not fraud because they sent you what was in the picture.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and I am saying that for a lot of Trump supporters it's the other way around. They feel like the former too often ends up going in the wrong direction altogether.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link