site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34370 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 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.

(Meta: why is it that Trump is rarely referred to by first name?)

Politicians tend to get referred to by their catchiest non-ambiguous name.

"Trump" is much less common than "Donald" as a name. "Hillary" is common but "Clinton" becomes ambiguous with bill. "Walz" is less common than "Tim." "Kamala" is less common than "Harris." "Biden" is less common than "Joe." "Vance" and "J.D." are both uncommon, but "Vance" is more iconic. I admit I don't know why we got "obama" instead of "barack.

I admit I don't know why we got "obama" instead of "barack.

I think if both names are memorable it will default to the last name, but there aren't a lot of other immediate examples. Going back in history there are a couple of other outliers though. Eisenhower was often referred to as Ike, by the public and his campaign itself. John F Kennedy was JFK, and his brother RFK. Ted Kennedy was always "Ted Kennedy", the whole name. Johnson was LBJ, both following along from his predecessor and having a very common last name. Its possible there were more of these pre-WWI but we've forgotten collectively about them.

I admit I don’t know why we got “obama” instead of “barack”

Because Obama’s first presidential run started in 2007 and 2008 when there was still a lot of residual War on Terror fear and suspicion of Muslims. “Obama” sounds African, “Barack” sounds suspiciously Middle Eastern.

suspiciously Middle Eastern

"Obama" and "Osama" sounded pretty similar to me the first time I heard about the former.

The latter, of course, was one of the most famous Middle Easterners especially at the time.

I'm surprised the conversation has gotten this far without anyone bringing up that his middle name is "Hussein." As in, the same name as Saddam Hussein, who was overthrown by the US at the beginning of the war in Iraq.

America elected a man named "Barack Hussein Osama Obama" in 2008. This is like France electing a man named "Hans Goering Hetler" in 1953. I don't have a problem with Obama's name, but I find it genuinely hilarious he managed to win the presidency at the time that he did with the name that he has.

“Obama” sounds African

Or Japanese.

“Barack” sounds suspiciously Middle Eastern.

FWIW prior to Obama’s presidential campaign, probably the best-known “Barack” (by American English pronunciation, not spelling) was Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel and Labor Party leader. He is indeed Middle Eastern, but seeing as he’s an Israeli Jew, I would hardly say “suspiciously” so.

Barack is not a commonly used first or last name for Israeli Jews. It’s primarily an Arab name. The former prime minister’s family name was the Lithuanian “Brog” and when the family Hebrewized that name it came out as Barak.

A case of Brog assimilation, so to speak

Obama was also a relatively young guy with relatively little experience, whose campaign image was serious and professional rather than folksy and relatable. In that context, going by one's surname fits better.

Good point! That suggests another axis, actually-- whether politicians needed to look friendlier or more professional. People hated Hillary on a personal level so she needed to look friendlier. Trump needed to look respectable. Vance is a relatively young guy, so the desire for respectability makes sense. Though that theory sort of breaks down for Walz (who's deliberately trying to make himself look like an extra normal midwestern dude) and Biden (who had a lot of "Joe" related nicknames, e.g. "diamond joe," "sleepy joe," but also biden-related nicknames -- "brandon"/"dark brandon.")

Walz is running as a more down-to-earth and male accessory to Kamala, so he is fitting the role the campaign needs to balance out her flaws with that. I'm curious as to whether his run for governor of Minnesota had lots of 'coach Walz' type messaging.

I think "Obama" is a lot more fun to say. Don't underestimate that part of it, you gotta weave the word into a whole bunch of phrases that have to sound good enough to say on TV, to your friends and pretty much any conversation setting, having a hard to pronounce name is a hindrance.

This is why people with long or hard to pronounce names that stick around get acronyms. Nobody wants to say Fitzgerald, and John and Kennedy are too unspecific, so he's JFK.

And sometimes you transcend the banality of your first name through annoying orthography: T. J. Kaczynski (better known for other work) is "Ted". Because who can remember czy in the right order?

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