site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33863 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 11, 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.

Pretty brief for a top-level post, but I'm curious what everyone here thinks of Pod Save America. It had been vaguely on my radar, but I've just started listening to it in the wake of the election and I'm actually really impressed by both the sophistication of the conversation and the relative lack of virtue-signaling and idpol talking points. It all feels fairly high-decoupling to me, which was a surprise, as I'd assumed it was a solidly blue tribe rather than grey tribe show.

But because I'm late to this party, I'm curious to hear what others think. Have I just been lucky enough to hear an unusually reflective collection of episodes?

It all feels fairly high-decoupling to me, which was a surprise, as I'd assumed it was a solidly blue tribe rather than grey tribe show.

Once again, there's no grey tribe - there's just a particular disaffected part of the blue tribe.

I don’t let people choose their colors. They get on the binary tree like everyone else.

“grey tribe” : left-right-right

“communist”: left-left-left

“center-right” : right-left-right

“conservative”: right-right-left

I am absolutely not blue tribe, and never have been, this does not describe me. I grew up with Christian Republican parents, got a hunting license at 12 years old, I hate cities, am highly skeptical of big government and redistributive policies, and think the majority of social problems are best solved by self control and personal responsibility, or failing that, ruthless law enforcement. My grandparents on both sides are rednecks and they are wonderful and kind people who I adore. But I personally would rather spend my day on my computer than outdoors on a pickup truck, and I think the Republicans are equally braindead as the Democrats, just less trigger-happy about their stupid plans. I suppose you could define me as "a particular disaffected part of the red tribe", but then you have to explain why I have more in common with the other blue-grey people than I do with the pure red people. I think lots of the right-leaning Mottizens have similar cultural leanings. Some of them are disaffected blue tribe, but others came from Red. But most of us don't fit in nicely with either.

Even if you don't think "gray tribe" is the best way to describe it, there's clearly some real thing that the term is pointing to, something that bridges the gap between Red and Blue.

But I personally would rather spend my day on my computer than outdoors on a pickup truck,...

...and I think the Republicans are equally braindead as the Democrats, just less trigger-happy about their stupid plans.

why I have more in common with the other blue-grey people than I do with the pure red people.

Sounds like you are more of an indoors type of person rather than outdoors, and has the scorn for the politicians that some of us remember from the last century before it became a team sport.

you are red tribe.

Maybe it's because I was a teenager, but it sure felt like there was a gray tribe in the '90s. The mores of Slashdot weren't blue tribe mores, but the mores of Reddit now are. The Eich affair and CoCs in open source made it clear a change had taken place.

I'm enough of a red-triber that I don't know how it happened, only that it did. And I think we lost something important.

The mores of Slashdot

I was so excited when I found out this place uses meta-moderation ala Slashdot. That site was incredible

The part of the grey tribe that actually had the potential to make a tribal core got re-absorbed. There's still random dissidents from that group, but they're basically atomized.

I'll copy my unrelated comment from yesterday:

I listened to Pod Save America after the election and they were saying this election shows us that we need to get money out of politics. I immediately thought they were talking nonsense since they are the side that spends the most by far. These are smart, informed, experienced Democratic operatives mindlessly parroting "money in politics" talking points when the exact opposite is clearly true.

They're reflective, thoughtful, capable of decoupling and also blind partisans shutting off their brains and reciting approved party phrases when they need to. Which is much better than the norm. If you want to hear the smuggest Obama staffers cheerlead for Democrats, this is the peak experience. They are really quite full of themselves. Some partisan brainrot comes with the package.

I once tried a listen, but they seemed far too self congratulatory for my own tastes. And, frankly, others have said they have "normie" Democrat takes, but I find I can get those in less than half the time by reading Politico. If Pod Save America was better, and less pompous, it perhaps could be the left of center version of the Republican-insider podcast Ruthless. But Ruthless is simply better. They have a sense of humor. They mix the insider information, high profile interviews, etc, with levity. I cant imagine the Pod Bros doing shots on the pod with AOC then making off color jokes about the rest of the squad.

If you want to understand where high information normies Dems are at Pod Save America + Ezra Klein are the places to go. The people who knock on doors, who donate $27 to campaigns, are solidly progressive but not locked into hard left socialist stuff and are under 50 usually listen to PSA. The analysis is solidly a pro Democratic Party perspective because they are all former staffers connected to current staffers, but it's worth listening to if you want to understand how the Democratic Party functions.

Ezra Klein called for Biden to drop out in the Spring of 2024 (if I remember correctly) and the Pod Save Guys pushed back on him. Post first debate they immediately turned on Biden and were one of the first big stones to fall in the media avalanche against him.

I'll also never forget that post George Floyd they had guests lined up to push the 'Eight Can't Wait' program of police reforms that didn't catch on and they got totally swamped by the more radical and viral 'Defund the Police'. Conservatives often don't see the different factions within the left and reduce everything to monolith machinations of 'the Cathedral' so if you're on the right I think you can learn a lot about the internal battles within the party from the Pod Save bros.

I've listened to a few episodes and didn't care for it -- it feels like an uncritical tongue-bath of the DNC.

That said, there are certainly worse podcasts out there, there's nothing wrong with listening to it. It's very inside baseball, which is appealing to anyone with an interest in politics.

It's annoying that the host shares a name with filmmaker Jon Favreau, I do a double-take when anyone mentions his name. Obviously that's not his fault, just an unfortunate coincidence.

Wasn't Pod Save America basically an astroturfed DNC creation to try to sway a few young male voters away from the Joe Rogan demographic? I've never watched them, but every other show I've seen them on they are just spewing carefully crafted DNC talking points. Tip toeing around the land mines that are the most unpopular DNC policies with a degree of spin so sophisticated it's almost impossible for me to believe they came up with it on their own.

Edit: I think I got it confused with another podcast full of 18-25 year olds. These are all old Obama staffers. So even more nakedly an extension of the DNC.

It’s definitely — and explicitly — pro-Democratic party, and features calls for political donations. However, it also feels (to me) quite fresh and direct and pretty bold in its analysis.

I'd echo Butlerian. What are their fresh takes? Can you timestamp me (or at least give the episode) where they said replacing Biden was needed (before the debate) or that replacing him with Kamala was a bad choice (before the election)? Or something post election that undermines DNC orthodoxy? Bring back the death penalty?

Yeah, it's pretty hard to want to listen to a DNC podcast. It's like reading Pravda circa 1985. It feels almost impossible to have a fresh take within the rubric of a dying Orthodoxy.

But I'm willing to be proven wrong! @doglatine What surprising new ideas are these hot young Dems coming up with?

I listened to a bunch of recent episodes and they are unusually thoughtful and smug DNC parrots. They are cheerleader partisans, not bold innovators.

I haven't listened very much and maybe I'm missing some older contrarian episodes. Without bothering to listen you already know their views: median Democratic consensus.

Can you give three examples of their fresh bold takes on policies which Dems usually tiptoe around?

How are they on the JQ?

I’m not sure if this was your intention but it legit made me laugh.

Why would anyone expect them to follow fringe alt-right antisemitism? They are normie Obama staffers.

Charitably, he's asking where they stand on Jewish controversies that are dividing the current left, such as Israel-Palestine or whether Jews count as Whites for the purposes of affirmative action.

Okay. I was thinking about "the Jewish question" in the historical sense. As in: "Clearly Jews are not going to be allowed to exist moving forward. So, shall we integrate them so that they are no longer Jews, or just dispose of them like vermin?"

As best I know modern people who seek answers to the Jewish Question are not wondering how much more integration would improve Jews.

If Butlerian meant a broad reasonable question about their commitment to Israel, I didn't notice it in the historical reference to the Jewish Question.

More or less 100% of people who refer to it as "the JQ" are using it as you describe.

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