site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10536 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's been a fair amount of discussion about Biden's pardoning of Hunter. There are people here willing to argue that it's a good thing, that it shows humanity on Biden's part to be willing to act as a father rather than as a politician. Others disagree, of course, but while the conversation about the current state has certainly been productive, it seems to me that rationalization on either side is always a failure mode, and the cure is predictions:

Suppose he pardons his brother Jim next? Is that also a good thing? Do you think it will happen, and if it does happen, what does it mean?

If I had the time, I think it would be pretty interesting to write an effort-post detailing how the conversation over the Biden family's alleged corruption has evolved over time, here and in the broader public, and the specific events and disclosures that have shaped that conversation. My perception is that many of the arguments made to defend Biden, his family, and the conduct of the investigations into their activities have aged exceedingly poorly. In particular, it seems to me that this saga has been an excellent example of a common pattern of group behavior wherein the facts, as they emerge, consistently break against the tribal narrative. This pattern seems to me to be a good indicator of entrenched tribalism attempting to deny reality, and likewise a good demonstration of the limits and shortcomings of that tribalism, which should guide us to a better understanding of how the Culture War is likely to play out.

Zooming out a bit, another interesting pattern is, for lack of a better term, "reasoning break points". There's a lot of evidence that Biden's family is corrupt and that Biden himself is involved, but evidently not quite enough evidence for anyone on his own side to do anything about it. Likewise, there's quite a lot of evidence that Biden is meaningfully senile, to the point that his own side forcibly un-nominated him for the presidential race. And yet, somehow, he's not quite senile enough to actually remove from office. One might expect these two issues to compound each other sufficiently to tip the scales on either, but somehow they aren't quite enough even in combination.

It seems to me that the Blue Tribe consensus is that these problems can be managed sufficiently to minimize harm to the cause, separately or even in combination. I perceive this to be a serious error. It seems to me that Blue risk assessments are based on the current state of conversation, and are largely based on the implicit assumption that their tribe has something approximating a veto on what what topics and perspectives that conversation will include. This is a mistake for two reasons: first, because the conversational veto has pretty clearly gone away, and second, because there is no reason to presume that the present set of facts will endure into the future. For the tribe staking their claim to "norms", there seems to be little awareness that the actions they take now are shaping those norms in the future.

Here's a short excerpt of what this looks like in practice:

REPORTER: "He's saying his own Justice Department is broken."

KJP: "He believes in the Justice Department."

REPORTER: "He just said it's infected with politics!"

KJP: [repeats talking points, quotes Biden] ""...even as I've watched my son be selectively and unfairly prosecuted...""

REPORTER: "How many selective prosecutions are there at the DOJ?"

KJP: I can't speak to that.

Another possibility: Joe Biden is doing his party a big service right now by letting himself become a sacrifice.

He's on his way out so there's no downside for anyone on his side to condemn and criticize him for the pardon. It gives them all a stage they can grandstand on to claim that they are the principled ones. It also increases the pressure on Trump if he wants to use his pardon on friends or family.

There's no way this increases the pressure on Trump. Yes, pundits will absolutely pull the "we criticized Biden when he did it so we are being consistent by criticizing Trump now", but that will be more than cancelled out by not being able to say "first President to do X" and "his predecessor famously didn't pardon his own son".

more than cancelled out by not being able to say "first President to do X"

In normal times I would have agreed, but I think they overplayed that card in recent years and I think the american public just don't care anymore about hearing Democrats and the media self-servingly calling everything Trump does "unprecedented" and then doing the same shit but defending it as different. If they can the appearance of having at least a little integrity in the public eye then maybe their objections won't seem as partisan when they raise them later.

There's a lot of evidence that Biden's family is corrupt and that Biden himself is involved

Still waiting on someone to give that evidence that Joe himself broke the law. I've only ever seen is arguably unethical actions, innuendo, and guilt-by-association. It's quite symmetrical to Trump's Russia problems, where the people under him were breaking the law, and there was a lot of smoke wafting in the general direction of the president, but there actually was no fire despite a thorough search.

to the point that his own side forcibly un-nominated him for the presidential race. And yet, somehow, he's not quite senile enough to actually remove from office.

There's a big difference between being capable enough to do the job of being president now, and being capable enough to also simultaneously do the job of running for president, and then also actually being president for another 4 years.

Alongside that, I agree with the people below who say the president arguably isn't that important as long as they have good enough deputies. They can be powerful depending on the person, but that isn't always the case. Trump is a great example, as he was effectively little more than the vibesmaxxer-in-chief, spending long hours watching cable news and generally getting distracted by petty squabbling and being unduly influenced by whoever spoke to him last on a topic. Kushner, McConnell, and other lower-level employees effectively ran the country in his absence. That's why he seemed so powerless in the months leading up to and following J6: those people largely abandoned him.

no fire

What is the "no fire" explanation for "ten percent for the big guy"?

It refers to a deal Hunter tried to enmesh his dad in, but his dad emphatically said no.

Alternatively it was just Hunter throwing his dad's name around.

Obviously it's his tithe to God.

They're very pious and devoted Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholics do not have any obligation to pay a particular amount in tithe.

here are people here willing to argue that it's a good thing, that it shows humanity on Biden's part to be willing to act as a father rather than as a politician.

I dunno man, are there people here willing to argue that? Maybe a couple.

I like the idea some have proposed that Biden could have executed a master stroke by pardoning his son and the Jan. 6 protesters. Heads exploding on either side of the aisle.

But more seriously, I wonder if the GOP will make noises about amending the Constitution to abolish the presidential pardon now. Probably not (since they will want Trump to use it), but Biden has done grave damage to the concept of a presidential pardon. I have always thought it was a good thing - even when presidents have used it to pardon friends and cronies, I still like the idea that for grave injustices, there is a last resort if you can just appeal to one man. But like so many "to be used in case of emergency" tools, we risk losing them when they are abused.

I dunno man, are there people here willing to argue that? Maybe a couple.

I've not been able to post much here the last month or so, but I've made the argument as a steelman in other venues, and while I'd prefer some more enlightened form of deescalation on these matters combined with a moderately-embarrassing airing-of-deeds, there's reason that many of those options are either not available (eg, commuting sentences not finalized gets complicated) or not trusted to be available (eg, Biden absolutely wouldn't and probably shouldn't trust Trump to do a pardon exchange).

EDIT : hopefully fixed link.

Is that supposed to go straight to Cooke's Twitter profile? Not logged in ATM, so can't see if his most recent post is an exchange with you or something.

Nope. Sorry, correct link should be this. In case it's not visible for those not logged in:

I think there's a steelman that there's a bunch of widely distributed risks when prosecution of close family of presidents starts being a common thing, in the same way that prosecutions of Presidents would. If we broke down the fence over malum in se conduct, it'd be one thing. But as illegal as many of Hunter and Trump's behaviors may have been, afaict we're looking at malum prohibitum.

When you start opening up potential where the laws and moral get unclear, or enforcement hard, you don't just (or primarily) Get The Bad People. The alternative isn't just these two going to jail; it's opening up a repeat of Ted Stevens every four years, for the highest office in the land.((And, as Trump has demonstrated, sometimes with the opposite effect.))

I think there's some weaknesses even to this steelman: the obvious 'is no one above the law' question, differing feels on inherently immoral, why some offices fall under it and others don't, whether it delays or even discourages the reform that still hasn't happened post-Stevens. But from a 'maybe we don't want to break all these really important institutions' position (albeit as someone who maybe does), there's a not-crazy arg that this cordons off a really bad path.

Of course, even if that covers the breadth, it leaves the 'why pardon instead of commute' problem, especially since Hunter specifically would likely benefit from some time in a halfway house or mandatory detox.

I dunno man, are there people here willing to argue that? Maybe a couple.

Yes.

Zooming out a bit, another interesting pattern is, for lack of a better term, "reasoning break points". There's a lot of evidence that Biden's family is corrupt and that Biden himself is involved, but evidently not quite enough evidence for anyone on his own side to do anything about it. Likewise, there's quite a lot of evidence that Biden is meaningfully senile, to the point that his own side forcibly un-nominated him for the presidential race. And yet, somehow, he's not quite senile enough to actually remove from office. One might expect these two issues to compound each other sufficiently to tip the scales on either, but somehow they aren't quite enough even in combination.

I disagree; I don't think "being his party's nominee for President" and "being President" are meaningfully similar.

Biden's senility is a severe liability as a candidate, because being a candidate involves being the focal point of a large PR campaign centered around one's own speeches, appearances, and general celebrity. You manifestly can't do well at that if you can't speak coherently for more than a few minutes, are visibly shuffling aimlessly around the stage, and are otherwise out of it.

However, Biden's senility is not as severe a liability when it comes to actually being President (at least from the standpoint of the institutional Democratic party). All he needs to do is physically be alive to occupy the office; most of the decisions get made well-downstream from him, and those that require Presidential input can mostly be handled by his kitchen cabinet/advisors a la Edith Wilson. Whether or not he's compos mentis doesn't have any impact on the flow of money and influence to Democrat constituent groups/activists, or the implementation of Democratic policy priorities by Democratic-aligned actors within the bureaucracy.

This is certainly a position one might take. One problem is that it contradicts the tribal narrative that presidential competence is important, which is a narrative that Blue Tribe has invested appreciable cultural capital in over the years, going back at least as far as Reagan. Biden seems much more compromised than Reagan ever was. He's certainly more compromised than W or Trump has ever been, and yet claims of the need of the 25th amendment have, as I mentioned, been a common part of political life for decades now. All of that now overhangs their present and future positions. The most immediate result is a loss of credibility, as people can't sustain the whiplash of "Trump is senile and should be removed / Biden is senile and that's fine." This is probably why Blue Tribe in general is inclined more to try to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. The problem with that strategy is that it won't, in fact, go away. Red Tribe's media machine is smaller and less efficient, but it gets there soon enough.

One problem is that it contradicts the tribal narrative that presidential competence is important, which is a narrative that Blue Tribe has invested appreciable cultural capital in over the years, going back at least as far as Reagan

This is true. However, are the people who create tribal narratives and invest cultural capital the same as those who have an interest in and/or ability to oust POTUS?

while the conversation about the current state has certainly been productive, it seems to me that rationalization on either side is always a failure mode, and the cure is predictions:

Indeed. I've seen you post half a dozen times here something along the lines of (and feel free to correct my paraphrasing): 'My model of the world is that the ingroup will consistently choose to harm the outgroup as much as possible. In 2020, protesters burned down billions of dollars worth of homes/businesses to harm the outgroup. When Red-tribe Kyle Rittenhouse tried to defend innocents he was attacked and then tried by the Blue-tribe Justice system that refused to prosecute the crimes of the rioters.

When the pandemic happened, Blue tribe health officials instituted draconian lockdowns that minimally impacted the white-collar laptop-class but wrecked Red tribe laborers and Red tribe parents.

My model of the world predicts these events perfectly! Do you have a better model, and if so, does it accurately predict the world?'

To which I would say, would your model predict:

  1. Trump wouldn't prosecute Hilary in 2016?
  2. The lack of major civil unrest, stochastic terrorism, or any major backlash to the repeal of Roe v. Wade aside from some Democratic electoral wins in 2022?
  3. The end of vaccine mandates in public and private spheres and the end of lockdowns?
  4. The utter lack of any major protests, civil unrest, or loss of faith in the electoral system after Trump beat Harris? (you want comments that aged like milk - look at the people who were claiming election fraud the morning of November 5th and even through that evening)
  5. The utter defeat of abolish the police and any of the George Floyd era movements?
  6. The lack of significant stochastic terrorism (remember the breathless doomposting about how easy it would be for disaffected lone wolf Red Tribers to blow power substations and other critical infrastructure?) through a year of electoral campaigning and the actual election?

To be clear, I doubt I could have predicted these events with any accuracy. But my observation is that you couldn't have done that either. If you want to prove me wrong, make some concrete predictions about the next four years. Will Trump incarcerate Biden or some other major democrat? Trump assassinated by an activist? Significant uptick in lone wolf attacks? World War III?

The only thing your model has going for it is that nobody pays attention to things that don't happen, even when that's the critical evidence against your argument. But whenever something controversial happens, you pop up and point towards the big flashing sign saying 'EVERYTHING SUCKS.' It's the same sensationalism that governs journalists, wrapped in a Bayesian/rationalist worldview.

Biden family's alleged corruption has evolved over time, here and in the broader public, and the specific events and disclosures that have shaped that conversation. My perception is that many of the arguments made to defend Biden, his family, and the conduct of the investigations into their activities have aged exceedingly poorly.

I admit to being disappointed in Biden, the pardon is deplorable and shouldn't have happened. I remain unconvinced that Joe Biden is particularly corrupt (...pardon notwithstanding), and I'm skeptical that Hunter is particularly corrupt by the standards of DC.

In particular, it seems to me that this saga has been an excellent example of a common pattern of group behavior wherein the facts, as they emerge, consistently break against the tribal narrative. This pattern seems to me to be a good indicator of entrenched tribalism attempting to deny reality, and likewise a good demonstration of the limits and shortcomings of that tribalism, which should guide us to a better understanding of how the Culture War is likely to play out.

One tribal narrative was that Biden was corrupt and abused his office to get rich. The other tribal narrative is...well, that the Bidens aren't particularly corrupt. Setting aside which direction the facts are consistently breaking, one tribal narrative has to be false in order for the other to be true. In your model, since you clearly believe Red Tribers are correct, are entrenched Red Tribalists denying reality?

edit: well, OP changed substantially after I hit post.

https://www.newsweek.com/shadowy-group-janes-revenge-claims-attacks-anti-abortion-organizations-1753992

Literally zero attempts to prosecute them of course, unlike people standing silently across the street from an abortion clinic.

(Edit: actually it looks like Florida got one in jail and fines for a few others! Clever trick, basically forcing the feds to evenly apply the FACE act against abortionist terrorists)

To which I would say, would your model predict:

(1) Trump wouldn't prosecute Hilary in 2016?

"Trump" isn't a unitary figure - the people who would have had to prosecute Hilary were the DOJ, which Trump was embroiled in a...contentious relationship with, given his termination of his first AG (who, incidentally, had a long history with Hilary as colleagues in the Senate), and the role of senior officials at DOJ in promulgating and sustaining the Russian Collusion hoax. Any order Trump gave to try and prosecute her would not have been obeyed.

(2) The lack of major civil unrest, stochastic terrorism, or any major backlash to the repeal of Roe v. Wade aside from some Democratic electoral wins in 2022?

How quickly we forget. There was at least one significant attempt at actual terrorism in the lead up to the Dobbs decision, coupled with strategic DOJ non-enforcement of (and thus tacit condoning of) the laws against harassment of judicial officers. There then followed a propaganda smear campaign designed to gin up impeachment efforts against conservative justices, notwithstanding similar conduct from liberal justices.

There was quite a bit of ‘4 am property damage’ attacks directed against Catholic Churches in the aftermath of dobbs as well, the stuff that could have been prosecuted as a hate crime if the perpetrators weren’t politically sympathetic. A very small number of far left activists attempted to interrupt masses and were physically prevented from doing so, which I suspect had a deterrent effect on confrontational behavior.

edit: well, OP changed substantially after I hit post.

Sorry, it's a bad habit. This still seems like a really good reply, though, and I'll try to get a substantive response.

One note, real quick. The quote is:

The last several years are best modelled as a massive, distributed search for ways to hurt the outgroup as badly as possible without getting in too much trouble.

It's like "A Tribe Called Quest", you have to say the whole thing. I try to keep the phrasing as consistent as possible, I've been using it for years now because I think it's a really important insight.

Indeed. I've seen you post half a dozen times here something along the lines of (and feel free to correct my paraphrasing): 'My model of the world is that the ingroup will consistently choose to harm the outgroup as much as possible.

By your reasoning, he should also predict that Biden will put on a vest full of explosives and suicide bomb Donald Trump.

Nobody will choose to harm the outgroup "as much as possible" if that means literally as much as possible regardless of the harm to themselves in the process. What they will do is harm the outgroup as much as they can without too much harm to themselves. That isn't the same thing. They did in fact tried to keep lockdowns going and they did support "abolish the police"; it's just that the political cost of continuing to do so was too great.

You've also thrown a few things in there that don't even harm the outgroup; a January 6 style protest against Trump winning the election wouldn't harm anyone in the outgroup (and the actual January 6 didn't harm anyone either, it was just an excuse for a left-wing crackdown).

Nobody will choose to harm the outgroup "as much as possible" if that means literally as much as possible regardless of the harm to themselves in the process. What they will do is harm the outgroup as much as they can without too much harm to themselves...You've also thrown a few things in there that don't even harm the outgroup; a January 6 style protest against Trump winning the election wouldn't harm anyone in the outgroup (and the actual January 6 didn't harm anyone either, it was just an excuse for a left-wing crackdown).

Okay; explain to me why left-wing protesters can't simply have George Floyd level riots and burn DC, NYC and every other major US city to the ground in response to Trump's election? You believe that sympathetic AGs in all of those very blue districts will fail to prosecute them, correct? What harm will come to stochastic terrorists, when I've been assured that it's very easy to do this kind of damage to infrastructure and hard to track the perpetrators? As far as I'm aware, no public health official has suffered legal other major professional consequences, so what harms did they personally suffer to make them stop pushing lockdowns and vaccines?

Perhaps I'll add, why didn't democrats rig the 2024 election given that nobody suffered consequences for rigging the election in 2020?

When you say 'without too much harm to themselves,' you've essentially watered your argument down to democracy/populism, given that most of your proposed consequences come from the ballot box. Or at least given yourself enough of a loophole to drive a George Floyd-style riot through. At which point, if my model of the world is that elected officials largely try to do things that are popular with the electorate (at least when those actions are legible to the public), and that a majority of Americans aren't particularly motivated by harming the outgroup, please give me concrete examples where our predictions about the world would differ?

Perhaps I'll add, why didn't democrats rig the 2024 election given that nobody suffered consequences for rigging the election in 2020?

Imagine you put a puppet in as president, knowing that he was controllable due to ill health and that your control of mass media could hide and lie about any visible instances of his declining health, which doctors assured you was bad, but currently easy to hide. Imagine that due to circumstances outside your control his condition deteriorates faster than you expect and can manage, such that after a disastrous debate performance (perhaps sabotaged by an alternative faction in your party) power players in your organisation begin publicly demanding he step down. If he steps down however, you will have to return a bunch of money you've already spent and start a brand new presidential campaign 100 days out from the election. Due to your financial situation and because all of the highly ambitious possible alternatives refuse, you have to run a person nobody thinks can win.

Wouldn't you cede that election and put your effort in preparing for the next one? You still have to campaign as hard as possible for the people downticket, but you aren't going to pull out all the tricks to win the presidency. Especially not when your opponents are watching like hawks.

Note in this hypothetical you are the party leaders, I don't mean to imply anything about the average democrat supporter, who I believe aren't especially motivated by harming the outgroup.

Because the people who were organizing them stopped when the post riot life started harming democratic candidates! In other words they were getting into too much trouble so they stopped that particular harm effort.

What is the evidence of this? People here and elsewhere argued that Floyd was a boon for democrats in 2020, and they won fairly convincingly four months later.

Okay; explain to me why left-wing protesters can't simply have George Floyd level riots and burn DC, NYC and every other major US city to the ground in response to Trump's election?

Because Floyd-level riots hurt Democratic-run and Democratic-voting areas (you yourself mention NYC--not a Republican stronghold!) and discredit the Democrats. They have some propaganda value against the right, especially when the media is sympathetic, but they probably hurt the left more than the right. This doesn't depend on prosecutions.

Perhaps I'll add, why didn't democrats rig the 2024 election given that nobody suffered consequences for rigging the election in 2020?

Because their ability to rig elections is not unlimited and they couldn't rig it by enough to push the election to the Democrats.

please give me concrete examples where our predictions about the world would differ?

"They'll allow as many Floyd-style protests as they can get away with, but they will eventually stop" is very different than preventing Floyd-style protests as much as they can. You would predict the latter. Certainly you wouldn't predict prosecutors going easy on protestors.

What did Jim do?

Purportedly, the same sort of things as Hunter, minus the crack and illegal firearms possession.

Presumably, no one is going to make enough ado about it for him to be worth pardoning, because the Biden's are spent. It simply does not matter.

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