site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14d ago (text post)   28438 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Matt Yglesias made a good point about Trump and authoritarianism:

But here’s what worries me. Nobody agrees with the presidential candidate that they prefer about everything. It is completely normal and appropriate to vote for someone with some reservations or points of criticism. If, all things considered, you preferred Trump to Harris, notwithstanding Trump’s election lies, encouragement of violence, and promises to let the perpetrators off the hook, then that’s your right. There were plenty of other issues in the mix in 2020 as well. What I see, though, from the billionaires who disavowed Trump only to come back to his side, isn’t people saying, “That really was an awful day and I hope he doesn’t follow through on the pardons, but I decided that taxes and energy are more important.” Instead, they’ve gone totally silent on the points of criticism.

And there’s an alarming doublethink about this.

If I were to say, “It’s irresponsible to back Trump regardless of your views on taxes and energy because he’s an authoritarian menace,” these people would say I’m being a hysterical lib.

But if I were to say, “It’s fine to vote for Trump while still strongly disagreeing with what he did around 1/6, I’d just like to hear you say that in public,” the response would be that everyone knows it’s best to avoid Trump’s bad side.

If you’re not willing to voice criticism of the president, even while generally supporting him, because you’re afraid of retaliation, that seems at least a little bit like Trump is an authoritarian menace. I have concerns! And what I would love more than anything is for Trump supporters in the business world or at conservative nonprofits to set my mind at ease, not by arguing with me about whether Trump is an authoritarian menace, but by showing me that they don’t fear him and can offer pointed, vocal criticism of his conduct and strong condemnation of these potential pardons.

That’s how pluralistic politics works: You agree with people when you agree with them, but you don’t shy away from disagreeing when you disagree. And to a considerable extent, the fate of the country hinges more on what right-of-center people choose to say and do if and when Trump abuses his powers than on what anyone in the opposition does.

The article starts with examples of conservatives criticizing Trump in the wake of the 2021 riot and says "...I also respect (or at least understand) the decision of those who’ve decided they care more about other things than about Trump’s low character and basic unfitness for office. But what disturbs me is the extent to which the entire conservative movement has retconned not just the events of four years ago, but their own reactions to those events, such that these days, to be disturbed by them is considered some form of lib hysteria." At what point are Trump's allies tacitly seconding accusations that Trump is an authoritarian and his "movement" a cult of personality, by treating him as though the accusations are true?

Edit: I think discussion of whether or not the 2021 riot should be a factor in the 2024 election is missing the point. Substitute whatever criticisms you think are warranted; Yglesias's observation of doublethink isn't dependent on people not making a specific criticism, it's that refusal to criticize someone for their history of at least failing to avoid the appearance of authoritarian or corrupt behavior can be a tacit admission of fear that the person is, in fact, authoritarian or corrupt. The question I asked is the bounds of when we should make that inference.

This feels like some new standard Yglesias invented. Public company CEOs normally feel free to openly criticize the president of the US? But they're now scared to criticize Trump?

Rightly or wrongly, this isn't new. It's never a good idea to criticize the President if you are influential and run a company whose fortunes depend on the regulatory state.

I am not a big fan of Trump. I think he is a narcissistic dilettante whose political success is largely attributable to the establishment closing doors to any opponent with better manners.

Now. On any other platform, this throat clearing would be a foolish attempt to buy me enough good boy points for the but that is about to follow. Here, in this den of contrarians, it is a brave and bold declaration of my independence and proof that I am better and more beautiful than you. But I digress.

But if I were to say, “It’s fine to vote for Trump while still strongly disagreeing with what he did around 1/6, I’d just like to hear you say that in public,” the response would be that everyone knows it’s best to avoid Trump’s bad side.

This is yet another establishment-aligned progressive insisting that you adopt his frame and meet him at 90% of the way all the while he calls you a fascist. We're approaching Tordenskjold-levels of audacity here. Imagine a Trumpist asking progressives to publicly admit that DEI is a scam designed to unfairly siphon away resources from white and Asian men but that they just like the Democrat's plan for health care a little bit more. The only way I can make sense of this sense of entitlement is that the field of public discourse has been so skewed for so long, those favoured by this state of affairs have accepted it as normal.

Imagine a Trumpist asking progressives to publicly admit that DEI is a scam designed to unfairly siphon away resources from white and Asian men but that they just like the Democrat's plan for health care a little bit more

Perhaps they don't use precisely those terms, but this sort of thing gets said by Democrats/progressives way more than Trumpists would ever criticise Jan 6. The whole post-election period has seen quite a lot of hand-wringing over perceived excesses of wokeness costing Democrats, from many people firmly within the progressive/Democratic/left-center-left coalition, far more at any rate than Trumpists are willing to say 'I think Trump behaved poorly in re Jan 6 but my agreements with him elsewhere overcome that objection'.

If Trump had lost the election we would definitely see major self criticism from within republican ranks of trumpism

For both parties it seemed like it should have been an easy win

The whole post-election period has seen quite a lot of hand-wringing over perceived excesses of wokeness costing Democrats

The only thing I have seen that vaguely resembles this is some lament about how we need to be better at explaining to men that feminism helps them, too. Which is certainly a take.

The Jan 6th is an easy way I find to not take someone or something written seriously.

Trump did Jan 6th

The Left did the BLM riots

If you vote for the left, you’re voting for political terrorism

Which I mean, to me is true, but I’m not making points about it. It’s absurdist. I’ll only say it in response.

"The Left" cannot run for president. There are numerous distinctions between Trump's post-election schemes and the summer 2020 riots, but Trump's close personal involvement is a rather glaring one.

Unfortunately, the candidate on the other side was a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of the 2020 riots, even to the point of offering material aid to the rioters. And the summer riots were far more personally threatening to me than what happened at the Capitol building on January 6th, 2021

Harris and Biden both condemned rioters. Donald Trump vocally supported rioters as long as they happened to be wearing police uniforms and attacking protestors.

  • -27

Walz allowed the rioting in Minnesota and Harris raised money for legal fees of rioters.

And Trump condemned rioters and asked his supporters to peacefully protest. Nobody cares for him, and nobody cares what Harris may have said, they know she supported hers just the same as Trump supported.

Harris tweeted support for funds to pay rioters’ bail. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

"The Left" seemingly can. Who's really in charge of the Biden administration? Whenever I bring up this point, a common rejoinder is that I'm electing his team as well as him. There's an endless train of whataboutisms: nothing is particularly heinous or egregious.

No. "Joe Biden and his team of advisors" is equivalent to "Donald Trump and his team of advisors". The equivalent of "The Left" is "The Right" - a group which includes white supremacist terrorists, corrupt police unions, etc...

Expecting someone to completely abdicate political participation because someone directionally aligned did something disqualifying is unreasonable. Expecting someone to display basic civic virtue by not support a particular candidate that did something disqualifying is entirely reasonable.

  • -12

Everyone I knew personally at the time who would identify as being on "the Left" spoke of the protests in nothing less than rapturous terms and would loudly claim to be confused about how anyone could see it as anything other than a second civil rights movement. This includes the sorts of people who volunteer for mainstream dem candidates' campagins. Which were also the people who used cringe Marxist lingo constantly. Which were also the people who complained about how there were so many white people around, or performatively wince whenever they see an American flag. And also the people who were the most tedious about COVID and demanded the same tediousness from those around them, unless it was to protest racism.

The rank-and-file are where the party gets it's staffers from, and they're where regular people get the most personal contact with political parties and form their opinions of them.

I could make a similar rant about where on the doll the Trump supporters touched me, and I'm sure there are many who's hatred of Trump is based on obnoxious personal interactions with his fans rather than Orange Man Bad propaganda.

How the supporters of a political party conduct themselves is de-facto an element of that party's platform and persona.

I saw this MattY thread contemporaneously with him putting it up and I think it is a classic example of left/progressives still not understanding right/conservatives at all.

What MattY and others need to ask is this question: What if people who freaked out about Jan 6 were just...wrong? What if people in Republicans in the orbit of DC that went along with the freakout initially were just swept up in a wave of panic because their neighbors were leftists and probably anxious leftists at that. And I remember Meghan McCain once said about Jan 6 that even going into it she'd never seen the people of DC on such edge. Well what if that was all, when evaluated neutrally, stupid. I think it was. I think most/all of the people who have flipped have flipped in the direction of it being stupid. And people flipping in that direction are correct.

Why?

Well, to start, Jan 6 is initially a political protest of the actions of the government. Held in the capitol city. And it progressed towards the building that houses the members of the government body being protested. In other words, there is no more legitimate time, place, and manner to conduct a protest. They were protesting government actions happening inside a government building in the vicinity of said government building. To think this was an illegitimate protest is to think protest itself is illegitimate, in which case, go join the Moldbug party.

Then what happened? A riot ensued. This happens from time to time with protests. But why did this one become a riot? The answer is simple: Incompetence by government officials. Security was understaffed. They did not establish a proper perimeter. THEY COULDN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT HOW TO CLOSE DOORS AND LOCK THEM. Let us really describe what happened on Jan 6: A cadre of armed men in body armor failed to hold the equivalent of a 16th century fort against unarmed, uncoordinated, mostly old people. They also happened to kill an unarmed woman who was jumping over some hastily assembled chair fort (are the Capitol Police toddlers? why are they making chair forts?).

Further, it has been revealed that intelligence about the size of the crowd was intentionally withheld from the leader of Capital Police. In addition his requests for overtime and other additional staffing requests were refused. In addition his requests for aid by outside agencies both before Jan 6 and on the day of the event were refused and/or delayed by several hours.

On top of that there are the less objective, but still suspicious things like the pipe bombs, Ray Epps, and other things that came out that increasingly made Jan 6 look like it was instigated/manufactured by anti-Republican/Trump elements within the federal government.

What does this boil down to? If you think Jan 6 is/was a big deal you are/were wrong. If you are right of center, there is a good chance you are religious or religious adjacent. If you are religious, what do you do when you were wrong? You repent. Now, Trump is not god, so you need no confess to your priest, but if you are a politician or media personality you need to confess to your constituents/readers. And I even Nancy Pelosi should do this. She should acknowledge how wrong and hysterical she and her movement were. But it is all the more pressing for someone on the right because of the culture and because of the fact they should have known better. The DC culture is almost a perfect reverse weathervane. They knew that and temporarily forgot it.

So this stuff has nothing to do with loyalty to Trump or authoritarianism. It all is about what a proper person does when they realize they were incorrect. Leftists can't see it through this lens because they dont understand the right because they 1) Can't see how Jan 6 isn't what they thought initially; and/or 2) Dont understand what repentance is.

The problem with January 6 has never been that the rioters actually had some chance of overturning the election or overthrowing the government, the central outrage was Trump's behaviour. Even as the rioting inside the Capitol was ongoing he was still trying to marshal support for overturning the election! And when he did finally call for people to go home it was pathetic non-condemnation. It was a fairly pathetic attempt at an insurrection, all things considered, but the salient point is that Trump almost certainly wished they had succeeded

What of Trumps actions? Engaging in legal actions against the results of the election? I dont think the UN or US NGOs would have certified the 2020 election if it was conducted in exactly the same manner, but won by a right winger in Ukraine.

The fake electors scheme has been ginned up by lawfare from the left. In reality, all of them claimed to be alternative electors that believed they needed to be appointed by a said date in case Trump's team reversed the results of the election in court. There is precedent for such a scheme. Once again, only over the top leftist hysteria has made a simple technical maneuver into something that it never was intended to be.

Last, Trump gave a speech in DC. Again the most legitimate place to give a speech on this topic.

I don't want to discount the insurrection - the combination of the riot and the fake electors scheme was truly egregious. I don't know if Trump intended for a literal riot to happen, but if you look at the speech he gave at the rally directly preceding the march on the Capitol it seems fairly apparent that Trump wanted to intimidate Congress into acquiescing to his stealing the election.

I mostly agree with you that January 6th was not that big of a deal. From the moment it happened, I had the 1954 United States capitol shooting in the back of my mind, which I always felt was pretty justified: Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States, the people who make all the big decisions about Puerto Rico are bureaucrats in DC, Puerto Rican nationalists go to the bureaucrats which decide their status and shoot the people responsible for their subjugated status. Notably, Puerto Ricans would not get the chance to vote on their status until 1967, so I think it is fair to say that the Puerto Rican nationalists were using one of the few avenues available to them, since there was no peaceful political process available to them to push for the result they wanted.

While I have pushed back against this elsewhere in the thread, I similarly think that if the January 6th rioters truly believed that the election was stolen, then their actions are somewhat justified. That said, because I don't believe the election was stolen, and don't believe that the evidence was particularly good that the election was stolen, I still think January 6th is a little worrying as an example of what epistemically misguided people can be manipulated into doing.

But I also acknowledge that January 6th posed only the tiniest threat to American stability. Taking over a single building, even if that building is congress, doesn't give you the keys of power, and we have processes in place for replacing congress members who are killed. The most likely scenario if congress members started getting lynched was that the military moves in, takes back the capitol and then after a few special elections we're back to business as usual. No big deal.

I was working up a reply that was basically the same thing: people are being hypocritical and pretending, they were simply wrong about Jan 6th. I was also going to mention the crazy hearings and how they were specifically formulated to make the whole event even more opaque.

I also thought the term 'retcon' didn't make sense. I don't see how people can be 'rewriting' the events or the players. Details may be evolving, but it's not like Republicans are saying Jan 6th was actually about slavery...and it happened in 1776 to George Washington. I dunno...I didn't get it.

it's that refusal to criticize someone for their history of at least failing to avoid the appearance of authoritarian or corrupt behavior can be a tacit admission of fear that the person is, in fact, authoritarian or corrupt.

I fear authoritarian (especially in the anarcho-tyranny sense) and corrupt government generally. I think that Trump often does things that can be easily perceived and in some cases actually are authoritarian and corrupt. I do not criticize these things, and I argue against criticisms of these things by others, because I believe that such arguments are highly selective and will not be deployed against the authoritarianism and corruption of non-Trump non-Populist politicians.

I do not agree that critiques of Trump's authoritarianism and corruption are valid, not because he is not authoritarian or corrupt, but because I have observed that those arguments do not generalize, and do not believe this will change without significant disruption of the existing system. I am not going to cooperate with the coordination of Trump- or Populist-specific anti-authoritarian or anti-corruption measures. I am not going to cooperate with people who have a long history of defecting against my interests and are poised to do so again.

I do not agree that critiques of Trump's authoritarianism and corruption are valid, not because he is not authoritarian or corrupt, but because I have observed that those arguments do not generalize, and do not believe this will change without significant disruption of the existing system. I am not going to cooperate with the coordination of Trump- or Populist-specific anti-authoritarian or anti-corruption measures. I am not going to cooperate with people who have a long history of defecting against my interests and are poised to do so again.

Can you elaborate on "those arguments do not generalize?"

Im not the OP but i suspect that the answer would be be something to the effect that, arguments that Trump is not a legitimate presidential Candidate because he "mishandled" classified documents must be viewed in the context of Hillary Clinton mishandling classified documents. And that accusations of Trump's nepotism and corruption must be vied in light of established facts about Joe Biden's nepotism and corruption.

In short, the accuasation is that critiques of trump for his authoritarianism and/or corruption are isolated demands for rigor.

Food for thought:

Trump post contemporary with Jan 6th: "The election was stolen, we all know that, it sucks... But you have to go home, we need peace, we need law and order, we can't play into their hands, we need peace".

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1876325245243806027

Wasn't that video posted hours into the events that day, after it was too late to make a difference anyway?

I don't know when it was posted, it does sound like after, but my general recollection is that Trump was not calling for an armed coup, he was constantly emphasising, before and after, that protestors needed to be peaceful.

And even if Jan 6th was successful in the sense that the protestors say... occupied the Capitol was it going to actually accomplish anything? It's not like there's a mystical control zone inside DC that enables full autocratic control if occupied by peasants of your affiliation

yeah. I never understand the counter-arguments to this. The entire building could have been taken over by American Jihadi's, every person inside massacred and it wouldn't have made any difference to the election outcome or who the president was going to be. I also find it mostly implausible that the participants had any expectation of success...there were no victory conditions. Obviously there are always lizardmen around but the freakoutery around Jan 6th just never made any sense. It was bad, they shouldn't have done it, but it was never a threat to Our Democracy.

Yeah, the vaguely-magical aspect attributed to bureaucracy is a major reason I struggle to think of it as a meaningful threat.

If Trump had wanted a full on armed coup, he had command of the military at that point, and as far as I know it's never been claimed that Trump tried to issue illegal orders that day. And it is worth remembering that a relatively small percentage of the people at his speech actually went to the Capitol, and only a smaller percentage of them went inside.

On the other hand, if Trump was shocked and appalled at the riot, he could have spoken up a lot sooner. Even this video is mostly taken up with reiterating claims that the election was stolen, justifying the riot while asking for it to stop.

I've seen someone else on The Motte say that Republicans view political violence as an on-off switch, while Democrats view it as a dial. On that day, in the context of the BLM riots that weren't that long beforehand, I think Trump saw violence as a dial. People who continue to see if as a switch either condemn Trump for attempting a coup (switch was on) or dismiss the entire thing as a nothingburger (switch was off).

I've seen someone else on The Motte say that Republicans view political violence as an on-off switch, while Democrats view it as a dial. On that day, in the context of the BLM riots that weren't that long beforehand, I think Trump saw violence as a dial. People who continue to see if as a switch either condemn Trump for attempting a coup (switch was on) or dismiss the entire thing as a nothingburger (switch was off).

This doesnt make sense. Trump is clearly telling people to go home, AKA OFF SWITCH.

Also, on/off isn't about coup/not coup. It is about what the proper police/citizen response is. If people are mullling around you let them mull until they do something other than mulling. If people throw shit, you hose/pepper spray them. If people steal shit or try to hit you at a disarming distance you shoot them.

Coup/not coup is about intent, prep, etc. That sort of thing isn't particularly important to the on/off switch discussion. You can (and usually should) execute a coup in "off" mode.

This doesnt make sense. Trump is clearly telling people to go home, AKA OFF SWITCH.

Hours later, too late to make a difference anyway. Was someone stopping him from speaking out earlier?

He responded significantly quicker than Pelosi and McConnell and there is significant evidence that Trump was spending most of his time attempting to convince Secret Service to take him to the Capital so he could lead his people towards a peaceful outcome.

He was in the middle of a speech at the time?

He really wasn't. His speech ended at 1:10pm. The first barriers were breached at 1:50. At 2:38 he tweeted "Stay peaceful." At 3:13 he tweeted "No violence." By 3:19 the Rotunda is cleared and fitting is moved outside and into the tunnel. The video linked above was posted at 4:17pm, and is the first time he tells people to go home.

Giving a speech preventing someone from speaking seems like a tough argument to make!

More comments

On January 6, 2021, I rooted for the rioters. As far as I was concerned, it was justified and I wanted the buffalo head guy to start hanging people live on C-span. Trump’s actions were unjustifiable, to me, in not backing the rioters to the hilt.

If you believe the election is stolen, then seize power dammit. If you don’t, then meekly concede.

Why did you want the buffalo head guy to start doing that?

If you believe the election is stolen, then seize power dammit.

I mean, if you believe witches really exist, and that they really curdle milk and make people sick, then we should totally burn all witches at the stake.

On the day of the 2024 election, I was at the house of an elderly conservative man, and he was going on about how "the fix was already in", and he was talking about stories he was already seeing online about suspicious activity around voting in Pennsylvania or whatever. He was clearly mentally preparing for a Kamala victory, especially after our state was called early in the night and went towards Kamala.

And then Trump won that night. And miraculously, I never heard him say anything about election fraud during the 2024 election ever again, even though if what he was saying about election fraud in swing states was true, it would logically mean that Trump must have stolen the election.

Based on my experiences with him, I'm not sure if I actually believe that most Trump supporters believe that substantial, results-changing election fraud ever happened, either in 2016 or in 2024. It was always just a paper thin loyalty oath, with the justifications coming afterwards.

I don’t know about most, but my hunting club agreed amongst ourselves that trump needed to win the Election Day of, because these lengthy counts with mail order ballots is how democrats steal it, so getting enough Republican turnout to outrun the probable fraud was imperative. This is probably semi-representative.

If, all things considered, you preferred Trump to Harris, notwithstanding Trump’s election lies, encouragement of violence, and promises to let the perpetrators off the hook, then that’s your right.

On Elections: Kamala Harris became the presidential nominee without without participating in or winning any primary elections. They essentially just made her the nominee and everyone kind of went along with it.

One encouragement of violence: Kamala in 2020 during the riots - "They're not gonna stop. And this is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not gonna stop. And everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day. And that should be—everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not gonna let up, and they should not, and we should not."

On promises to let perpetrators off the hook: In 2020, Kamala Harris spoke to Jacob Blake on the phone and visited Kenosha where she called for systemic change and justice and condemned the police shooting of Blake. Blake was a felon who resisted arrest, then reached for the floorboard of his car where a knife was located while police were right behind him. Back in June of that year, she told people to chip in to the Minnesota Freedom Fund that was posting bail for protestors and rioters. This year, Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 death row inmates.

But what disturbs me is the extent to which the entire conservative movement has retconned not just the events of four years ago, but their own reactions to those events, such that these days, to be disturbed by them is considered some form of lib hysteria." At what point are Trump's allies tacitly seconding accusations that Trump is an authoritarian and his "movement" a cult of personality, by treating him as though the accusations are true?

It is true that the conservative movement has attempted to retcon plenty of easily-identifiable and unsavory behavior, and that Trump is a justifiable lightning rod for many of it. What bothers people like myself about the other side though is that same lack of accountability for bad policy, but with an extra layer that involves them aligning with progressives who are committed to unraveling the culture of Western society. This sort of thing is occurring outside of Washington too, which is what makes it so much worse. All of our institutions have been heavily captured by this brand of progressivism and it has swept across the country and contributed to what I see as this unraveling.

Another thing that bothers me about these progressives is the real-time "retconning" or redefining that occurs when another progressive policy or movement is injected into the mainstream. There's always this air of plausible deniability or deflection when they start doing something. "You see, this thing we're doing, we're not actually doing it." or "Why do you care so much?" "DEI isn't prioritizing one race over another." To them, an action has a different definition depending who has committed it. When a conservative slaps you in the face, it's a slap. A progressive, on the other hand, strikes you in the face with the palm of their hand in defense against oppression.

It has been the constant play on words, the effective racialism or group scapegoating, the overt thumb on the scales in favor of "marginalized groups," the self-critiquing of our own traditions and not others, etc. Overall, it's these actions and arguments that all seem to stem from an "idea" or branch of critical theory that has attached itself to the brains of Western liberals. It's that "idea" that I'm against.

So, I think the difference between us might be that, for me, the negatives associated with Trump and conservatives are less significant than the broader impact of that "idea" on our society today.

Kamala Harris became the presidential nominee without without participating in or winning any primary elections. They essentially just made her the nominee and everyone kind of went along with it.

This is absurd. Intra-party democracy is not an essential part of a democratic society. The open (in the broad rather then technical sense) primary is a relatively recent development in relatively few nations, so unless you believe the near every democracy except America since the 1970s was in some way deficient or illegitimate these two are not at all equivalent.

They're not gonna stop. And this is a movement, I'm telling you. They're not gonna stop. And everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day. And that should be—everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not gonna let up, and they should not, and we should not."

Even if this was contemporaneous with the riots, it was not about the riots, it was in context clearly about protests - and crucially, unlike Trump she was totally unambiguous when she condemned violence, unlike Trump who, even when he told people to go home, still spent 90% of the time whining about losing the election.

We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protestors. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.

Here she makes a clear statement that rioters have no part in her coalition. Trump treated the Capitol rioters as misunderstood patriots.

This year, Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 death row inmates.

This is such a strange comparison to make I can't tell if you're being serious.

  • -11

Even if this was contemporaneous with the riots, it was not about the riots, it was in context clearly about protests - and crucially, unlike Trump she was totally unambiguous when she condemned violence, unlike Trump who, even when he told people to go home, still spent 90% of the time whining about losing the election.

Everyone on the left was doing this motte-and-bailey in 2020 and it angered me to no end. I had to worry about where I parked and which routes to take to avoid getting stopped for hours, surrounded, or have my car destroyed by BLM - whether you call them "protestors" or "rioters", I don't care. The two often bled into each other. And I was terrified that the protests would spread from downtown out to where I lived. They can all go to hell.

Of course Kamala condemned violence... but then she raises money for a bail fund for people that were arrested for violent acts during a "protest"/"riot". Watch the actions, not the words.

Your entire reply to me is a series of examples of you demonstrating the exact point I was making about retconning. I'm not even sure if your comment is real.

I typed out a longer reply, but I don't think I want to have this back and forth. You make patently false statements and you have a petulant Redditor tone that I loathe.

But if I were to say, “It’s fine to vote for Trump while still strongly disagreeing with what he did around 1/6, I’d just like to hear you say that in public,” the response would be that everyone knows it’s best to avoid Trump’s bad side.

I've been only very loosely following the whole Trump 2 transition and know even less about the drama around wrongthink about 1/6, so I honestly have little idea, but I wonder how accurate this characterization would be. Again, I'm someone who hasn't spent much time looking into 1/6, but what little of it I've learned has led me to a weak conclusion similar to Sunshine below, that it's a case of the demand for threat to democracy outstripping the supply, resulting in the demanders constructing their own supply. And so I could believe that these billionaires in question just came to a realization that their previous disavowal of Trump wrt 1/6 was based on faulty premises and thus changed their mind to just not disagree with what he did around 1/6.

But maybe these billionaires in question (which ones? I couldn't read the Vanity Fair article that was linked) actually did make statements similar to what Yglesias made up in his hypothetical above, and so he's completely on the right track about billionaires apparently being cowed by Trump in that soft, hard-to-detect, easy-to-deny sort of way.

I really, genuinely, sincerely, in my heart of hearts, don't think 1/6 was that big of a deal. The demand for a Threat to Democracy outstripped supply, so the media spent 4 years trying desperately to turn a molehill into a mountain. The fact that it apparently didn't move the needle at all during the 2024 elections just goes to show that most Americans also don't think that 1/6 was that big of a deal.

The key fact about the 1/6 riot is that there was never any path by which they could have actually usurped the government. The US Government does not operate on Capture the Flag rules. It doesn't matter how many people trespass in which government buildings. Taking over a government usually requires cooperation from an armed force like the military, police, a paramilitary militia, an intelligence agency, or something along those lines. 1/6 had some unarmed old people milling about in the capital. An actual Threat to Democracy must have the ability to actually Threaten the Democracy, as in there must be some chance of damaging it in some way. 1/6 was just one of a series of riots in that time period, and not a particularly damaging or violent one at that. The fact that it was targeted at elected officials instead of random innocent civilians makes it, if anything, less morally fraught than many of the other riots that took place in the preceding months.

Surely though this argument essentially boils down to 'we have very strong norms and institutional safeguards against threats to democracy, so it doesn't matter when people try to undermine or destroy them', which is obviously absurd - the norms are strong because they have been beyond reproach for so long! Every 1/6-like event undermines that which prevents them from succeeding.

No, what this argument actually boils down to is 'if you're concerned about tyranny then you should not trust the government when they say that extreme measures must be taken because of the ongoing Threat to Democracy posed by the opposition leader.'

I am not afraid of the government being too weak, I am afraid of it being too strong. True Threats to Democracy almost always come from inside the house.

The big issue is the co-occurence of the 1/6 riot and the fake electors thing and the attempt to get Mike Pence to not certify the election. I agree it wasn't a real risk to democracy, but if you believe the continuation of democracy is desirable, that should be concerning, when it looks like the leadership of a major party isn't invested in following election results (yes, this depends on a judgement that election fraud allegations are false, imo they are, and we've discussed that to death and they're just not very smart), and is willing to play along with admittedly feeble attempts at violence. (And if you believe democracy isn't desirable, the childishness of the half-assed attempt to overturn it shouldn't be exciting either)

Why should I care more about the fake electors thing than about the practice of rule-by-executive-order, or the fact that the military keeps killing people even though the US hasn't formally declared war since 1942, or gerrymandering, or any of the other sketchy government power shenanigans that have actually succeeded over the past few decades?

It seems to me that there are a lot of actual threats to democracy, and this does not even come close to topping the list.

rule-by-executive-order

Because EOs are just not that powerful of a tool. They don't override laws, and there are a lot of laws constraining agencies.

The other stuff doesn't have much to do with democracy? It's bad policy.

It seems to me that there are a lot of actual threats to democracy, and this does not even come close to topping the list.

If we assume the election fraud claims are false, Trump attempting to invalidate an election against him is worse than that other stuff? Democracy is a tradition, of peaceful transfer of power every so many years, and Trump tried to break it!

(It is reasonable to not like democracy. It did, after all, give us Trump twice, punctuated by someone too old.)

I definitely agree with this. I think that calling the Jan 6 riot a "coup" or similar terms is pure sensationalism. It is even worse when you have the direct contrast of other, similar riots all throughout 2020. The very same people condemning Jan 6 condoned those riots, if not outright approved of them. I try to be charitable, but I genuinely can find no charitable explanation of this double standard which seems plausibly true to me.

It's so weird to me, because it's like a minimum coup. Not even a minimum viable coup, because it clearly isn't. It's not doing your enemy a small injury, it's like slapping your enemy in the face with the broad of your sword, then running away. Are you trying to start shit or not? It's like they themselves didn't know if they wanted to start shit or not. Like a child's drawing of a coup: all the parts are there, the march, the violence, the fraudulent scheme, but they're just executed with zero skill or coherence, basically at random. I think that's why it causes so much division. It's like your neighboring country rolls a tank over the border, but it's made of cardboard, plops out one sad shell and falls apart. Now you don't even know if you're supposed to be at war.

It's a coup done by a person who just doesn't know how to do one. So do you let it count?

There's also just kinda a mess when the question of what extent Trump was actually involved.

Contemporaneously in 2021, there were quite a lot of allegations that Trump and close associates were deeply integrated into the planning and execution phases of the riot itself, to the point where the Trump campaign was supposedly giving out pdfs with specific movements to specific individuals. Into the next couple years, we had people testify that he got into John Wick-esque battles with the Secret Service, that he'd called off military assistance to capitol officers. It's still possible that's the case!

But what's actually been proven is that he gave a pretty dumb speech, and his campaign authorized the 'alternative' 'fake' elector slates, and he called the governor of Georgia. I'd argue that this is an impeachable offense, and that in a sane impeachment hearing we could start pulling at the threads of those more serious allegations to see if any justify a conviction. They didn't -- the impeachment hearings were a political joke even by the low standards set by recent competition -- and as a result we never even got to the question of whether such a conviction would be justified or whether such a conviction should include future prohibition from office.

I don't know whether his involvement genuinely ended with the speech, but if some there's a lot of underpants gnomes involved between that speech and the riot itself.

If I had read an article like this from Yglesias in early 2024 and it was about Biden's cognitive decline then instead of Trump's supposed authoritarianism now, I'd care what he says.

To wit:

If you’re not willing to voice criticism of the president, even while generally supporting him, because you’re afraid the veil might be pulled, that seems at least a little bit like Biden is a senile mess. I have concerns! And what I would love more than anything is for Biden supporters in the entertainment world or at progressive nonprofits to set my mind at ease, not by arguing with me about whether Biden is a senile mess, but by showing me that they don’t fear that he is a senile mess and can offer pointed, vocal criticism of his conduct and strong condemnation of his senior moments.

But Yglesias, unlike Jon Stewart or Ezra Klein, ran cover for Biden until the bitter end and the emperor lost his clothes. Then he started doing the exact same thing for Harris. He doesn't have the integrity or honesty required to ask anyone to sacrifice anything For the Sake of Our Democracy.

It seems like an isolated demand for criticism. The left spent 4 full years refusing to talk about Biden having dementia, getting lost during conferences, etc. were they afraid of authoritarian Biden? Or were they circling the wagons in an attempt to maintain power and credibility?

I think this is why the conservatives aren’t keen to criticize Trump. Not because they’re afraid of him, but because the current moment of American politics is basically warfare. They know that the left will take anything negative said about Trump or MAGA and use it to attempt to drive wedges and discredit Trump. Giving the enemy a way to build a narrative against them is stupidity. If they disapprove of him doing something that the left considers “authoritarian”, that will absolutely be used. That’s what happened with Liz Chaney. She said that what Trump did on 1/6 was a coup attempt, and her participation fed that narrative and was used to justify the hearings that later to provide backing for the law fare. If dissent is necessary to prove Trump isn’t an authoritarian, but any dissent proves Trump is an authoritarian, there’s no point.

It’s almost is if the billionaires’ prior support of Democrats and current support of Trump were both purely out of selfish economic interest and had nothing to do with genuine principles.

But what disturbs me is the extent to which the entire conservative movement has retconned not just the events of four years ago, but their own reactions to those events, such that these days, to be disturbed by them is considered some form of lib hysteria.

I had an in-depth discussion of the Jan 6th riots and my own reactions to them more or less in real-time. My assessment of the event has changed drastically since then, as the "facts" much of that reaction was based on have washed away by subsequent revelations. I do not think this change in my perception of the event is "retconning"; I know for a fact that I was lied to about significant portions of the event, and strongly suspect I've been lied to about many others. Subtracting the falsified and highly questionable portions of the narrative, and adding in the context that this narrative intentionally excluded, dramatically changes the nature of the subsequent conversation.

What facts were you lied to about in real time?

For starters, I accepted the claim that the riot was notably violent, with the rioters killing six people including a police officer, and that the rioters were armed. This turned out to be a naked lie.

I listened to Pod Save America today and they had a bit about Jan 6 rioters attacking with weapons and multiple deaths. The lies continue unabated to this day.

How is the weapons part not true? 129 people were convicted of attacking police officers with weapons and there are many cases of people bringing guns, knives etc.

I'd be interested to see those reports. AFAIK, there were very, very few weapons (none?) recovered during the riot. A serious report to the contrary would cause me to update.

This source gives the figure of people charged with assault with weapons as 133 not 129: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/39-months-since-the-jan-6-attack-on-the-capitol

Some examples of firearms recovered and assaults (this article claims 'approximately 129', not sure why the discrepancy): https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/apr/05/robert-f-kennedy-jr/rfk-jr-falsely-said-that-jan-6-protestors-carried/

(Edit: there is an 'or' in the reporting that I did not notice so the 133 number is charged with assault with weapons OR causing bodily harm to police' (which presumably includes punching etc not just armed assault). Nonetheless some examples of attacks with weapons given).

There were weapons there and cops got pepper sprayed and clubbed.

They certainly did not kill multiple people. They killed zero people.

At what point are Trump's allies tacitly seconding accusations that Trump is an authoritarian and his "movement" a cult of personality, by treating him as though the accusations are true?

Isn't this just all politics during the age of social media? Every candidate is idealized because to show any misgivings is to give aid and comfort to the other side. No nuance is allowed, or else you will be beset by purity trolls who will question your loyalty. It's gross and tiring, but it's the same dynamic that made every Democrat pretend to be all-in on Joyful Kamala within one day and previously pretended that Joe Biden was as sharp as ever right before he obviously wasn't.

At what point are Trump's allies tacitly seconding accusations that Trump is an authoritarian and his "movement" a cult of personality, by treating him as though the accusations are true?

Whenever you want to assume that conclusion.

I mean, sure, you could come to other conclusions based on available evidence- such that rather than a Jan 6 retcon there were always significant voices on the American right that disagreed with blue-tribe framings, that there are enough examples of boy who cried wolf that the media-commentator sphere's credibility is abysmally low, that Matt Yglesias isn't exactly anyone's idea of an objective and even-handed commentator- but you can always just dismiss such things to boo the outgroup for not booing the outgroup.

such that rather than a Jan 6 retcon there were always significant voices on the American right that disagreed with blue-tribe framings

Yglesias gives specific examples of criticism:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-13/gops-mcconnell-trump-morally-responsible-for-jan-6-attack

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/what-happened-on-january-6/

So far as I know, the National Review has been consistently Trump-critical, not endorsing any presidential candidate in 2020 or 2024 (someone please correct me if this is wrong), but McConnell?

That's nice, but why did you ignore the point you chose to reply to? Mitch McConnell is an individual, not a totem for the entirety of the American right- his stance neither proves or disproves whether there were always significant voices on the American right that disagreed with blue-tribe framings.

Moreover, Mitch McConnell's own change of views being simply labeled a retcon is itself assuming a conclusion. An alternative hypothesis would be that McConnell never bought into the Blue Tribe's framing, but was willing to pretend for political advantage at a time when it would have seemed politically advantageous. Or that McConnell believed it at the time based on information that he had, but later information changed his views. Or various other, non-assumed conclusions.

You are, of course, under no obligation to value those alternatives, but you are also under no obligation to assume Yglesias' conclusions either... which is to say you are just as free to assume the conclusion to justify booing the outgroup for not booing the outgroup.

...what?

I was nodding along as I read, until I got to this bit:

but by showing me that they don’t fear him and can offer pointed, vocal criticism of his conduct and strong condemnation of these potential pardons

To the extent that there was rioting on January 6th, that was bad. At least as bad, however, was the way that rioting was prosecuted. I'm 100% on board with criticizing Trump when it is warranted, but that doesn't actually appear to be Yglesias' argument; his real argument appears to be "do not allow Trump to pardon anyone convicted of offenses committed during this very specific event." And while I am not an expert on these cases, I've seen a lot of concerning videos that suggest to me that this is probably a good use of the presidential pardon power: putting January 6th to bed.

Yglesias seems to be reasonably consistent on the question of pardons being bad, so I can appreciate the article to that extent. But he's ultimately just... wrong. As long as so-called "prosecutorial discretion" exists, the pardon power is pretty important, and should if anything probably be used more liberally.

Huh, I pulled up short on the very first line:

The scariest thing about contemporary American politics is that on January 7, 2021, it was widely acknowledged among American conservatives that Donald Trump’s behavior on January 6th was completely unacceptable.

No, there were a lot of already-Trump-skeptical (not to mention all-out NeverTrumper) American conservatives who agreed with that. A rather larger group that weren't happy with rioting, but this specific claim isn't about the rioting: it's about Donald Trump's behavior. Which was barely even well-characterized on January 7; we still had wild stories of Trump trying to physically take control of his official car. And of the three examples he himself gives, one clearly does not condemn Trump's behavior at all, Steve Schwarzman's statement.

The insurrection that followed the President’s remarks today is appalling and an affront to the democratic values we hold dear as Americans. I am shocked and horrified by this mob’s attempt to undermine our Constitution. As I said in November, the outcome of the election is very clear and there must be a peaceful transition of power.

The only mention of the Trump is that his remarks preceded the "insurrection", as Schwarzman terms it.

As for the core of the claim:

But if I were to say, “It’s fine to vote for Trump while still strongly disagreeing with what he did around 1/6, I’d just like to hear you say that in public,” the response would be that everyone knows it’s best to avoid Trump’s bad side.

This is just Yglesias's headcanon. It has no real probative value; you shouldn't update on it unless you blindly trust Yglesias.

Indeed. The whole argument is based on MattY's and his fellow DC residents' anxiety about Trumpists and Jan 6 being an objective evaluation about society. No one else thinks so. Some Republicans at the time were swept up in the anxiety and have subsequently came back to reality. Others like Liz Cheney have not.

Substitute whatever criticisms you think are warranted; Yglesias's observation of doublethink isn't dependent on people not making a specific criticism, it's that refusal to criticize someone for their history of at least failing to avoid the appearance of authoritarian or corrupt behavior can be a tacit admission of fear that the person is, in fact, authoritarian or corrupt. The question I asked is the bounds of when we should make that inference.

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