site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   30328 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 18, 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.

Who cares? This is up there with stealing a balloon on free balloon day. Sloppy? It doesn't matter how careful you are, they will make scandals up. See Kavanaugh

I like my political operators to understand basic operational security because I want them to succeed in enacting the goals of my coalition.

That the enemy uses diverse tactics that make this only relevant sometimes doesn't invalidate that preference.

This translates to something like: "I like my political operators to not get lied about. If they were smart their enemies wouldn't be lying about them." E Carrol Jean. Tulsi Gabbard. Kavanaugh.

But this isn't a lie -- Gaetz really did pay for sex on Venmo & PayPal. There are receipts.

"My opponent is going to lie so therefore the black-letter truth doesn't matter" is a take.

Where did Kavanaugh leave written receipts of any wrongdoing exactly? Afaik there is no evidence for him doing anything untoward, only hearsay.

Our man would still be AG in waiting if all there was was hearsay.

I understand closing the ranks is a sound tactic, but if you can't recognize picking competent leaders is too I can't do anything for you.

Nah it’s cringe to hire 17 year old prostitutes as a 40 year old man, people are entirely within their rights to consider that sleazy behavior.

I can only hope to be so cringe but free at 40.

You planning a move to Thailand?

Excuse me, I'm racist, not gay.

What does age gap discourse have to do with hiring a prostitute?

I think it's much less cringe than hiring 37-year-old prostitutes. And at 400-500 dollars per session she was a real bargain, to boot.

In your view, what are the most and least cringe age of prostitutes to hire, and for what prices?

It's not just age. It's the answer to "how likely would the person be able to have the same experience by asking his wife/GF or hooking up" that determines the cringeworthiness. So it can be age, kink, difference in attractiveness, etc.

Maybe the real cringe is cheating on your wife/gf in the first place. More generally (since I don’t think Gaetz was married at the time of the allegations around him and Greenberg) breaking the law to hire a 17 year old prostitute suggests a certain cringeworthy horniness / lack of self-control at the least.

the girl was allegedly 17 years old in 2017 when Gaetz was 35 and the girl likely had a fraudulent real Florida driver's license saying she was 19

middle-aged women are "within their rights" to think any opinion and it's certainly not surprising they disapprove of rich congressmen their age sleeping with 17 year olds, paying them or otherwise

I'm not middle aged or a woman and I think carrying on a purely sexual relationship with a high schooler while a man in his thirties is pretty cringe.

why?

Because it means, almost definitionally, that he was using her for sex with full knowledge that that is what he is doing, and that she more than likely expected more out of it.

If he’d dated and married her it would certainly be odd, or if they’d dated seriously and it not worked out. But I don’t think it’s inherently skeevy unless he was a teacher at her school or something. The ‘using a teenager for sex’ thing is what’s wrong.

If he was paying her for sex he wasn't breaking any promises. The skeevy guys are the ones going "yeah baby I'm totally gonna leave my wife for you but now's not the right time so please you've gotta get another abortion come on baby just one more time then we'll be together forever"

A guy who is either dating with the expectation of marriage or paying her pocket money with no strings attached is morally in the clear by my standards.

She was a sugar baby, not a streetwalker, there was an actual relationship there, albeit not a great love story. The moral equivalent is to taking a teenager as a mistress, not seeing one working at a brothel.

What’s the threshold for ‘middle aged’ in your opinion?

over 30-35

for the record, this wasn't meant to be a personal dig at you because I didn't know you fit this description (or even if you do, but given the mod response I suspect it's at least close); it was meant to be a dig at the middle-aged+ women commentariat who regularly make such comments on the internet

Make your point without the snide personal digs.

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