site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25740 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 25, 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.

I actually find the idea that they are shocked that Biden dropped out as hilarious. The right-leaning media could find obvious signs of dementia, including him wandering off during NATO conferences, numerous visits by a Parkinson’s doctor, and so on. How the sitting VP had absolutely no idea is beyond me.

I thought the Trump campaign was actually surprised by Biden dropping out? They'd been preparing to fight him, and had to pivot rapidly since many of their prepared lines of attack didn't work against the younger Harris.

I think the Trump campaign was surprised because they thought:

  1. Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) would never give up on their "he's totally not senile" psy-op;
  2. Joe would make them take it from his cold dead fingers.

Consider the possibility that this was all a psy-op to boost the morale of the Democratic rank and file.

I listen to conservative talk radio and they had such easy certainty that Biden would drop out months before he did. They were laughing at journalists saying Biden is so sharp that people can't keep up with him.

I think you are taking their statements a bit seriously. Their words shouldn't be taken as a sworn testimony, but as part of a narrative they wish to promote. Not "This is what we think happened", but "This is what we think we should say we think happened".

Their candidate lost, but Democrats still have other elections to look forwards to, and these advisors will have more successful careers if they affirm the party line.

Except that this was obvious. How can you credibly sell your ability to win elections when you can’t predict something that obvious. It’s not something I think they missed so much as they were hiding it. Affirming a lines that says the sitting VP was so out of touch that she had no idea that Biden was suffering dementia, it doesn’t say much for the democrats as a party that can win elections.

It’s the less damning admission. Which would rather cop to:

-You were too dumb to realize that your 82 year old presidential candidate was getting a little slow

-You were a Machiavellian conspirator that intentionally installed a blackmail compromised figurehead President so that a CIA directorate could lead the country into the Third World War?

first, as second is some deranged babbling

Except that this was obvious. How can you credibly sell your ability to win elections when you can’t predict something that obvious.

The people they are selling themselves to share the same self-delusion, so it's to their benefit to affirm the delusion to get more work. This assumes that they are self-aware enough to know that their delusion is false, but most delusions persist because the deluded will not challenge them.

The people they are selling themselves to share the same self-delusion

Or, alternatively, are judging them on their ability to not go off-message on a public podcast.

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