site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   14467 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I would have him not engage in the same detestable behavior Biden did. I don't fucking care if it means that the Democrats get to perpetuate bad things and get one up on Republicans, that is still preferable to the current state of affairs. If I get screwed over by only one side hitting defect, I'm better off than the status quo where I get screwed over by both sides.

  • -14

You understand why, from my perspective, I expect Trump to engage in these kinds of minor shenanigans to protect my tribe from democrats, even if they’re still shenanigans?

I do not, because he isn't protecting anything. Nobody has gained here, there are only losses.

  • -10

I mean, the J6 prisoners sure gained a lot.

The overcharged J6 protestors gained something. There's some measure of injustice being removed.

The people locked up for political reasons sure gained a lot.

This is just 'Don't fight back when your bully hits you' schoolyard reasoning writ large.

Yes, in a proper, preferable world, the bully wouldn't be hitting you. Or the school administration would do something swiftly and render further altercations impossible for either side.

Lacking any sort of higher recourse, often times the best option is to draw blood and continue to do so until they stop.

Have you read Romeo and Juliet? A schoolyard bully is mano e mano. A feud between groups is much messier, with innocents caught in the fallout.

Equating abuse of power to Shakespeare's criticism of idiotic teenage romance is not a comparison I would make.

I am making it as a simple comparison, because there is a difference between a man vs a man, and the political situation where it is group vs group. The obvious difference to me is that the most vocal, violent, and dissident points of view control the dialogue (and retaliatory actions from each side continue indefinitely) while other people, who are not involved, are caught in the crossfire. Hence the tragicomedy of Romeo and Juliet.

To the other comparisons to war, which are also group vs group: defecting in this sort of political dilemma, rather than war, serves to improve the standing of specific people within the society, and not the group as a whole. The difference should be that the detriment of your neighbours is a sign of the detriment to yourself. Even if you believe that defecting helps the party who does so (to me it seems like a defect-defect downward spiral, not a defect-cooperate situation where there is any benefit), it does not folow that a benefit to the party is a boon to the people of the country more generally. But as long as people are happy to watch politicians (pretend to) club each other over the head, happy that their outgroup experiences tribulations (which means everyone gets a turn), and happy that the other side is upset, I don't see how anything constructive can happen. The reality is that the politicians will drink Johnny Walker with one another after the show is over, but the general public will have no such consolation.

That works with bullies because it's a single person who you can hurt to get them to stop hurting you. In this case it's more like you're fighting a crowd of people, and to hurt them hurts yourself just as much. It's stupid to fight under those terms.

hurt them hurts yourself just as much

...no? No, it doesn't.

(I'm dimly reminded of a lynch mob trying to fall upon someone, only to have them pull out a gun and have said lynch mob descend into a horde of individuals. When was that...)

Again, we've tried the entire 'be a bigger man' tactics of politics. The past two to three decades have been a demonstration of the GOP 'taking the higher road' or 'loosing gracefully'.

While we're not out of those woods yet, there seems to be some light coming from behind the trees. And thank goodness for that.

I'm dimly reminded of a lynch mob trying to fall upon someone, only to have them pull out a gun and have said lynch mob descend into a horde of individuals. When was that...

A scene in huckleberry Finn.

This was more recent, and an example on one of the Firearm forums I frequent about how brandishing a firearm can be a complicated and thorny legal act.

But, yes, I suppose that applies as well.

The past two to three decades have been a demonstration of the GOP 'taking the higher road' or 'loosing gracefully'.

Are you joking? They absolutely have not been that. The GOP has been fighting every bit as dirty as their opponents. To paraphrase the old quote about Christianity, acting right hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried.

You can point to examples of the GOP doing things that qualify, I’m sure?

McCain and Romeny both were both broadly regarded as highly moral and above-the-board fellows able to rise above mere partisanship, at least outside of the period of their presidential campaigns at which point they were warmongering sexist racists. Afterwards they were once again respected statesmen, at least as long as they criticized Republicans.

Mitch McConnell was dead set against a president being able to nominate a supreme court justice during his lame duck period... right up until it was Trump doing said nominating. It was basically impossible for a significant chunk of Obama's first term to avoid hearing Republicans accusing Obama of not being a US citizen, when there is zero chance they would fight so vociferously against someone on their side.

I never said that the Democrats are perfect angels who act morally and have the people's interests at heart. Nothing could be further from the truth. But they are not the only ones who fight dirty in politics and are willing to break norms of good behavior. Anyone who claims that the past 20 years has been a pattern of the Democrats misbehaving as the Republicans try to take the high ground is woefully misinformed at best, and more likely is a partisan hypocrite.

Trump did not nominate any Supreme Court justice in his lame duck period.

Meh. I remember McCain's and Romney's lame-ass campaigns, and I'm surely not the only one.

Do you think most of his constituents want him to not engage in this behavior?

I couldn't begin to guess. I would certainly hope not, but given that people here are willing to make excuses for him it may be that most voters want him to.

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