site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   30273 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 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 have a friend who personally knew the United Healthcare CEO's killer a few years ago. I asked the motte for some questions to ask him, and what I learned from them was surprising enough that I think the Motte will appreciate the inside scoop as a top-level post.

I am merely relaying the opinion of a high-achieving, apolitical normie.

Q: Was he popular with the ladies already, or was it literally the murder that did it? A: No, as my friend put it: He had no "rizz."

Q: Was he outspoken politically? In what way? A: He did not like that my friend was a bit of a tech bro "capitalist."

Q: Did he have any chronic health conditions? A: Not that my friend knew of.

Q: Did any friends of his have chronic health conditions? A: It did not come up.

Q: Was he social, or a loner? A: Not very social but he tried to be.

Here's where it got interesting:

Q: Was he 'weird' in any way?

A: Yes. My friend and others found his behavior awkward and forced. He "tried to be macho" but couldn't pull it off. He also used a position of authority he had over my friend (who is pretty unassuming and unconfrontational) to make life hard for him due to the supposed political differences.

The last one surprises me a lot; his social media did not paint that picture. This made me update a lot on what kind of person he was back then(1-5 years ago).

Overall i do not care for the politics analysis discourse when it comes to this guy, but the personality profile of a "rational" killer is a lot more fascinating imo. (There were a lot more details but my friend insisted on anonimity. He also strongly condems the killers actions)

Hope the Motte appreciates a bit of original Journalism ;)

My friend and others found his behavior awkward and forced. He "tried to be macho" but couldn't pull it off.

I've seen a lot of this in other communities. Generally it points to a lack of social sense and a desire for social status.

Thanks for getting answers to the questions.

Piggybacking on this most-recent Mangione-related top-level to provide an update on the traction of the "gray tribe shooter" narrative: Besides the Independent article, the LA Times has now jumped on board the Mangione-as-gray-tribe narrative.

I now have high confidence that "exposes" from places like the Guardian and the Atlantic will be published in the near-ish future. I'm not entirely sure of the angle that the Atlantic will likely take (the Guardian's I expect will be "gray men bad, but especially rocket man bad").

I could see the Atlantic digging deeper than just dragging TPOT, Thiel and Musk. What are the implications when the Vice President elect, the Supreme Court, and a lone-wolf assassin "with a dark fandom" have all signaled that they've read or been exposed to a niche online writer by the name of Scott Alexander (prospective Atlantic title: "50 Shades of Grey")? What role have long-form bloggers had in reshaping the political landscape since 2020 (e.g. tie-in Scott to Substack's rise and maybe drag Moldbug et. al, maybe featuring some form of "Joe Rogan, but for the techno-literati")? Is Trump's victory not an affirmation of Trump but a political realignment by an ascendant gray (neither red-nor-blue) identity?

Lots of places it could go from here, but I don't see any of them ending in a great place for public perception.

EDIT: And a bonus (because I don't see anyone else talking about it except journos, Mangione's likely reddit account was found for anyone that's interested. Nothing groundbreaking in there, but more corroboration that it was likely a back-pain related meltdown.

When you click it has an important-looking warning banner that "This Account Has Been Suspended!"

The content is archived here.

How did they find it?

Frankly, I'm still giggling that after years of redditors claiming themotte users would do spree killings, the first rat murderer came right out of /r/GeorgistFuckCarsAnticapitalismTEDtalks, and got the most uncritical support from the same people who were faking performing hysteria over "violent right wing extremism" in 2020. They went straight from claiming the motte needed to be banned before nybbler shot up a synagogue to fedposting about shooting up a board meeting, with zero cognitive dissonance.

Noticed theschism has been pointedly avoiding discussing it

Mangione's politics appear to be all over the place, and I still wouldn't be shocked to find out he had an account on the motte at some point.

Why do you think the schism is "avoiding talking about it"? What is your model of their thinking that leads to this pointed avoidance of the topic? I skim the schism now and then and they are so low volume that many big events don't get a single post.

Is that the theschism pointedly avoiding discussing, or is there a general lack of discussion at theschism?

True, discussion did sort of peter out rather than just avoid that particular topic. It's strange the way it goes through bursts of activity like that. Guess it's inevitable for a smaller community that doesn't have a rolling boil going.

I'd be interested to know if both his parents were in the picture and/or married for the duration of his childhood.

We've been trying to figure this out at work and we have a few theories.

Sidebar: social media presence rarely paints an accurate picture of a person for a variety of reasons. This is also a huge part of why social media is so damaging for young people.

None of this is a diagnosis. I know fuck all about actually clinical relevant information for this guy, media sucks and speculation is rampant. Mostly writing this as a thought experiment to see if I can come up with any good questions for you to ask if you get another chance.

In no particular order.

  1. Mostly depression/pain and he decided to make a political statement instead of just toping himself. Sample evidence for: back pain problems? has caused murder before in others. The supposed withdrawal from family. What could you ask your friend: probably not a lot given the timeline. Usual "depressed y/n" questions would work if someone saw him more recently. Caveat: more to depression than just the stereotype most people know. Against: Doesn't really look the type in the photos and such we have now, but that's shitty quality data.

  2. Pure politics/radicalization (I'm including drug/psychedelic induced scrambled brain in here). For: superficially that looks to be what happened, easily fits the data we have now. Drugs. Ask: need someone close enough to him to know how he actually thinks about things (we are all familiar with hiding our power levels), behavioral and thought patterns suggestive of tendency towards radical politics. Looks like you spotted some of those. How'd he feel about Trump, COVID? How evangelic and aggressive was he about those? Did have radical political swings in response to popular stuff? Think about the stuff you see that predicts someone becoming a "woke crazy" type. Same underlying thought patterns and behaviors can cause radicalization in all kinds of different directions, even in the rational and intelligent. May not even be "wrong" see: US founding fathers. If your friend is intelligent, thoughtful, and aware of this stuff you can just ask him if he looks like someone who could easily be radicalized with the right setup. Against: some of the other explanations work better with the limited information we have right now.

  3. Personality disorder. (What is this? Think antisocial personality disorder, narcissism. The latter is hypothetically where most school shooting type events come from, which is a surprise to some). For: makes it easy to decide to kill people. Is normally what causes similar events. Ask: Check out the DSM criteria for ASPD and NPD. The former is easier to ask about "does he like, not fucking care about other people's rights at all?" The latter is going to be hard to elicit from a layman if it's not obvious unfortunately. Many people pick up the vibe on these people though so your friend might go "oh yeah." These are essentially life long so would have been present when your friend interacted with the guy. Against: Doesn't smell right (ASPD especially) and doesn't really match with the online profile so far in my opinion. If he ends up being more incel seeming with more data NPD could end up being a good explanation though.

Probably the most interesting:

  1. Prodrome. (What is this? The guy is catching schizophrenia or something else and is starting to go weird but it is still early). For: Guy is organized, intelligent and had a good plan but it went off the rails in a strange way that doesn't match the rest of the story. Substance use. Manifesto stuff. Some things are off. Withdrawal from family. People with good intellect, education, and resources hold it together, often for some time and then it starts to fall apart but not usually in this rough of a fashion. Ask: Any family history of mental illness, especially serious mental illness (your friend probably doesn't know but this would be huge). Did his behavior change in any way while your friend knew him? Weird beliefs, social withdrawal, "looking like" a different person (seems like the interaction wasn't longitudinal to likely catch this)? Was he weird? some weird people have a predisposition towards mental illness of this kind and develop it (or don't). You'll notice the person is off. Poor social skills. Not as emotive. Strange beliefs. Doesn't seem to move through social situations as well. Oddly confrontational about strange things. Limited functioning in some ways (if they have partners the partners are more like them). Can't emotionally connect with others. I'm sure an expert in first episode psychosis would have a better way of conveying this but there's a vibe most people are able to notice once it has been pointed out to them. I know you said your friend stated the guy is weird but we are looking for a specific weird here. Against: Little old for this to be common (usually starts more like late teens early 20s, but his resources may have impacted course). Doesn't seem overly psychotic right now (but again this is more prodrome than full blown illness)

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