site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   33740 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.

Of all of Trump's cabinet picks, RFK Jr is the most unserious.

The credentials of the others at least seem fit for the positions.

It is a bit odd how worried people are about credentials. Look at the last number of HHS secretaries. Do they really have better credentials?

It is a bit odd how worried people are about credentials.

"Remember, a lone amateur built the Ark. A whole team of professionals built the Titanic."

This is insightful. Xavier Becera is a completely empty suit, devoid of any substantive (object level) merit. And somehow we're willing to chalk that up to normal politics.

In truth, I think it might actually be directionally correct. An actual idiot that does nothing and thinks nothing of substance may actually be preferable to someone that knows enough to confidently fuck up.

Call it the Sorcerer's Apprentice Curve -- the utility function is concave in intelligence.

what substance he had was quite partisan - he argued against Little Sisters of the Poor, for instance

Of course he did -- any D appointee would have. That wasn't some personal view he brought with him to HHS.

any D appointee would have, maybe, but he was the one who actually had.

In this case, being anti-vaccine and alt-health should be considered actively malicious.

The problem of the US are the high prices of finding and getting good care, and the byzantine system. The frustration of that has been successfully redirected into whole-system skepticism.

Which, fair enough. But outbreaks of preventable disease are bad. In the end, it will be interesting to see if RFK and the gribblers end up biting off more than they can chew by going after the immovable corn lobby.

The current HHS head is a HerbaLife fan.

I’d love to have better options, and I’m disappointed that the Trump one is this, but I think people badly underestimate how bad our institutions are.

Gaetz seems like a POS. RFK is a philanderer who fried his brain, but did some good and doesn’t seem particularly malevolent.

Are you a measles virus or something? From a human perspective, RFK is visibly malevolent in a very obvious way.

Before he got on the Trump train, RFK devoted a significant part of his activism to discouraging parents from vaccinating their children against measles based on false claims that vaccines cause autism. His activism caused a measles outbreak in Samoa with 83 deaths.

If we measure malevolence by the degree by which the harm-to-victim exceeds the benefit-to-wrongdoer, killing kids for social media klout is the worst.

His activism caused a measles outbreak in Samoa with 83 deaths.

No, it didn't. The outbreak was ultimately caused by two nurses who diluted two measles doses with muscle relaxants instead of water. Two children died as a result, and the government paused MMR immunization for several months. When they restarted, they didn't immediately release the reason for the children dying, which probably limited uptake after that. The outbreak started in this environment, the government imported a lot of measles vaccine from India, the outbreak continued. It is at this point Kennedy comes in. He does claim the measles vaccine from India was probably defective and caused the outbreak to continue, but HE certainly was not the cause of it.

There's more to political legitimacy than skill.

my guess is that RFK Jr won't last very long. Remember Scaramucci? Trump likes to reward people for loyalty, and HHS is a decent prize, but RFK Jr has too big an ego to play subserviant to Trump for long.

The high number of people claiming that the trump picks won't last long seem to be hoping against hope. Trump does have a core number of people who do and are able to work with him over years and years.

RFK Jr is clearly a different personality than the establishment that wasn't able to last, so claiming that rfk will not last long seems premature.

Bannon was also idiosyncratic and he didn’t last long. So was Scaramucci.

I'm not against Trump, I consider myself neutral. But it's just an objective fact that he churns through people around him quite quickly. I've never before heard of a president where his own vice president publicly came out against him, for example.

Steve Sailer once said that this kind of constant churn is common in a certain type of hard-charging, 80s, NYC business guy. I think that's a fair description for Trump.

I think some non-trivial portion of his starting picks won't remain in their positions until the end of his term. I'd say 25%. Either because Trump removes them or they remove themselves.

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