site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   32523 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 4, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Who do you think will win, Trump or Harris?

If I had to bet, I guess I'd bet on Trump, but as a foreigner looking at the situation only through the Internet, I don't feel particularly confident.

Relatedly, do you think there will be issues certifying the election results? Which side do you think will struggle more if they lose?

Stranger things have happened I suppose, but it would be weird for Dems to do it after 4 years of handwringing over voter-fraud conspiracies. Don't think Trump will try anything either given how the last time turned out, unless they'll find a smoking gun.

And of course - do you think we'll see outright political violence? I certainly hope not, but it's good to be prepared.

My impression is people are tired. Maybe some half-heated protests. Maybe a lone-wolf attack. But nothing mass-scale, not even a repeat of J6.

Overall, how was your experience of this election? Did it seem noticeably different from any recent elections in any particular way?

It was bizarrely vibes based. No actual clash of ideas or policies, either from the candidates, or from their supporters.

Stranger things have happened I suppose, but it would be weird for Dems to do it after 4 years of handwringing over voter-fraud conspiracies

Democrats have absolutely no problem with threading that needle. They’ll just claim their claims to be real and republican’s to be false.

If the Democrats refuse to certify Trump I think its more likely to be due to claiming Trump is unqualified to hold office (for some reason) than voter fraud allegations. But don't be surprised if Trump wins and they try and do a similar challenge to what Trump did but somehow its preserving democracy instead of destroying democracy.

I’ll take that latter bet.

I don’t think they’ll resist certifying unless there’s a Bush v. Gore level of doubt.

Stranger things have happened I suppose, but it would be weird for Dems to do it after 4 years of handwringing over voter-fraud conspiracies. Don't think Trump will try anything either given how the last time turned out, unless they'll find a smoking gun.

Scoop: Some top Dems won't commit to certifying a Trump win

Words don't actually have meaning to politicians. They are just mouth sounds they make to keep their job.

I don't have an issue with only promising to certify 'fair' elections in hindsight, because that is Trump's current attitude too.

It was Bizarrely vibes based. No actual clash of ideas or policies, either from the candidates, or from their supporters.

Yeah agreed on this. The almost complete lack of genuine policy proposals, especially from the Harris camp, was shocking to me.

Like... I get that vibes are more important but usually there's at least the veneer of caring about the object level policies. This time it seemed that veneer was totally absent.

The almost complete lack of genuine policy proposals, especially from the Harris camp, was shocking to me.

'Who, whom?' is the only policy statement they need.

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