site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  7d ago (text post)   26640 thread views

U.S. Election (Day?) 2024 Megathread

With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.

If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.

If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.

Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I actually remember learning what abortion was in 5th grade and being so repulsed I lectured the teacher who was trying to convince us it was a good thing. (Says something about where I grew up that something like that could happen, thanks Quakers). Not even confusion, just an instant angry threat response: "this is an attack on us kids"

Years later I read that one PKDick story and remembered "oh yeah, this is exactly what it felt like in the moment. Did my beliefs change, or did I just lose that animating perspective?"

The angry threat response and instant friend/enemy distinction is probably the most stable (and valuable) part of my political identity, come to think of it.

Not that I necessarily disbelieve you, but it's funny how this literally sounds like one of those "and then everyone clapped" memes about kids with unusually strong and specific ethical beliefs.

This, and the comments upthread, are quite alien takes to me. Seems pretty ironclad logic that abortion, by definition, cannot be a threat to any kid who's out the womb. Neither was I ever existentially tortured by the idea that local laws allowed my mother that option; it might have helped that she never expressed anything like regret at having me. As for corrupting the parent/child relationship, it wasn't too long ago that "I who begat you shall kill you" was supposed to be the example of highest paternal honor.

I definitely wasn't as young as OP, but I remember getting into a debate with a female substitute teacher in 7th or 8th grade about abortion (and in retrospect it was a wildly inappropriate topic for a substitute teacher to bring up). I had pretty strong convictions early on, though I attribute that to my religious upbringing, my parents, and an interest in history, ethics, and other topics from a fairly young age.

I was dumb enough to not despise neocons until I was in college though.

The angry threat response and instant friend/enemy distinction is probably the most stable (and valuable) part of my political identity, come to think of it.

Am I interpreting you right that you instantly identify people with different politics than you as enemies, and see their policies as threats?

people with different politics than you as enemies, and see their policies as threats?

SteveKirk is clearly talking about a specific policy, right?

every member of our society learns when they grow up that their mother once had the fully legitimized option to have them slaughtered

telling Mum "thanks for not aborting me", and her not being super-reassuring about it (I don't think she seriously considered it, but I'm damned sure that during my adolescence she often wished she had). It's a bit creepy.

I actually remember learning what abortion was in 5th grade and being so repulsed ... just an instant angry threat response: "this is an attack on us kids"

The policy in question, is abortion. The 'threat', is the 'threat' of being aborted.

The angry threat response and instant friend/enemy distinction

The directionality is clearly, your policy is a threat to me, and so, I see you as an enemy. Not, your policy is different from mine, so I see you as an enemy, and as such, your policies are threats.

I am honestly flabbergasted, can you include quotes from the rest of SteveKirk's comment and the rest of the comment chain, to help show how you arrived at the interpretation that you arrived at, I can't even imagine how you are parsing these comments to end up where you did.

Thanks for explaining. That makes a lot more sense.

SteveKirk is clearly talking about a specific policy, right?

He was in the first part of his comment. Then the words “my political identity” made me think he was using the last sentence to generalize to his overall perspective on politics, as opposed to keeping it specific to that one topic. The words “stable” and “valuable” further made me think that the emotional response is a core and cherished foundation from which all his other political beliefs are based on.

The 'threat', is the 'threat' of being aborted.

That’s another reason I interpreted it differently. It doesn’t seem to me like the threat of being aborted is still relevant as an adult, so it didn’t come to my mind at all that “angry threat response” might still refer specifically to the feeling he had as a kid, even after all these years.

Then he says the phrase “friend/enemy distinction” — I mean, who’s the friend or enemy in a discussion like this? I can only assume the enemy is the person he disagrees with politically, because it certainly can’t be the person he agrees with. And that fits with “threat” — the threat presumably comes from this enemy person he’s discussing politics with, because where else would he be feeling the threat from?

In short, I started out parsing “The angry threat response” in a generic rather than a specific sense, and I read the rest of the sentence in that sense as well. So it sounded to me like he had this emotional way of responding to the topic of abortion as a kid, and now as an adult he still not only responds to other political issues in that same emotional way, but he considers it to be a core part of how he approaches politics, to the point where he instantly identifies other political participants as either friends or enemies. Which of course sounds ridiculous, so I had to ask.

I can't even imagine how you are parsing these comments to end up where you did.

Hahaha, does that help?

you instantly identify people with different politics than you as enemies

is very different from,

your policy is a threat to me, and so, I see you as an enemy

Failing to see this seems to be the core area of confusion. The assumption in your post, which is 'ridiculous', is that any political difference is threating. The idea that someone who is threatening you politically, could be viewed as an enemy, is far from ridiculous.

The idea that he might generalized the principle from the specific instance, is totally anodyne. It's just his conflict theory origin story.

Years later I read that one PKDick story

Which?

"The Pre-Persons"

"The Pre-Persons"

Thanks, nice catch

Huh, I had no idea Dick was opposed to abortion.

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