site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   19284 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

At a court hearing Thursday afternoon in Houston, the trustee who oversaw the auction, Christopher Murray, acknowledged that The Onion did not have the highest bid but said it was a better deal overall because some of the Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to pay Jones’ other creditors. First United American Companies, a business affiliated with one of Jones’ product-selling websites, submitted the only other bid. The trustee said he could not put a dollar amount on The Onion’s bid.

...

“This was a auction that didn’t happen, with a bid that was lower, with money that wasn’t real,” he said.

Is this legal? At this point it's not an "auction" anymore but a free handing over of the property to whatever grift the trustee desires. In the previous thread on this, I predicted that Jones's supporters would be able to snatch up the assets at a relatively cheap price, but I never guessed that Jones's enemy would win, not by outbidding, but by manipulating the process.

Of course this AP fake news drivel says "the judge in Jones’ bankruptcy case said Thursday that he had concerns about how the auction was conducted" but didn't post the name of the judge or what the judge actually said. I'll follow up on this but fuck AP. The judge had a video call with the interested parties and possibly the AP reporter and others where invited to listen. I'm not sure if a recording is available.

As a side note, I remember the onion being much more relevant sometime in the past. I wonder if its decline is related to it becoming just another mouthpiece for the democrat agenda, or if I'm totally off track.

As a side note, I remember the onion being much more relevant sometime in the past. I wonder if its decline is related to it becoming just another mouthpiece for the democrat agenda, or if I'm totally off track.

Babylon Bee feels grounded in a way that the Onion isn't. Practically all of their articles start with an actual piece of news: The CEO of Polymarket was raided, Matt Gaetz was appointed, Cabinet picks were protested, etc.

The Onion relies more on completely-fabricated articles (1, 2, 3) which simply don't have the same impact. The ones that do contain factual content are unbearably blunt at promoting the establishment (or farther left) stance on the issue.

Relatedly, I couldn't find a single Onion article against the Left, while Babylon Bee articles against the Right are a dime a dozen. That type of hardline political stance turns me off, and I suspect it does the same for others.

I wonder if its decline is related to it becoming just another mouthpiece for the democrat agenda, or if I'm totally off track.

The bigger issue is that the barrier to entry is so low publishing online now that theonion.com doesn't hold much value.

The pay for writers isn't that great either afaik.

So a talented funny person is better off doing their own thing. YouTube used to be easy to monetize. I think it's more streaming and podcasts now.

The bigger issue is that the barrier to entry is so low publishing online now that theonion.com doesn't hold much value.

So why did the Babylon Bee manage to overtake them in terms of relevancy?

The Babylon Bee was serving an underserved market. The Babylon Bee might individually be more relevant than the Onion but not so relevant when compared to all the Cathedral media. Of course that is an unfair comparison, but if you compare Cathedral vs anti-Cathedral media then Cathedral media in total is more relevant.

If we were talking about media broadly, I'd agree, but I think the broadest category that can be used fairly for the purposes of this conversation is "satirical publications". Is the any cathedral satire that matters at this point?

As a side note, I remember the onion being much more relevant sometime in the past. I wonder if its decline is related to it becoming just another mouthpiece for the democrat agenda, or if I'm totally off track.

Yeah, that tracks.

They are the dog that caught the car. Cultural victory is very bad for a humor publication. Pro-regime propaganda is never funny. And neither is the Onion, not for a long time now.

Probably the pendulum will swing again at some point.

They do a good piece every now and then, but all the best content that people still talk about seems to come from a 10-year period that ended somewhere in Obama's first term.

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