site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   45536 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

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.

106
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Even in 2020 we can see how the election became very close at one point during the night, until Biden's mysterious surge.

This is not, and was not, mysterious. It was heavily predicted before the election (Reuters, CNN, NBC, Fox), the explanation (Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, mail-in ballots are counted later) was straightforward, and the only reason this is even a thing is that it was one in a series of Trump's attempts to avoid facing up to his loss.

Do you not remember the "Russians hacked the voting machines" after the 2016 result? There was one lady over at SSC/ACX who firmly believed this happened, even though she was otherwise sensible, and she was a Democrat voter/supporter. There have been conspiracy theories on both sides, so no throwing stones within a glass house.

I don't understand; do you think that the existence of people with bad ideas who voted blue means that we shouldn't point out when someone is reasoning badly? Do you think that I'm backing that particular conspiracy theory? (I'm not; I only faintly remember hearing it years ago.) Aren't we supposed to sharpen each other, as iron sharpens iron?

"Someone who you remind me of reasoned badly, so you shouldn't complain about me reasoning badly" is a poor approach.

Indeed, it's perfectly natural that after various poll watchers in key areas were removed, Biden had a surge of unfalsifiable support coincidentally in tandem with a startling drop in ballot rejection rates. This was indeed heavily predicted.

The trouble is that while the result could be legit, it looked dodgy in certain areas. I had a quick look at Mariposa County, which was one of the results that looked dodgy - red the last election, suddenly flipped blue, when all the other counties were consistent in voting both times. Turned out that just a small swing in votes could flip it from red to blue because it was finely balanced. No need for any fraud, simply a small amount of voters changing their minds.

Generally speaking, it would be a strange coincidence if the Biden campaign's malfeasance matched up so impressively well with the media's red-mirage predictions, and had the opposite effect you'd expect on the eventual results, which were much better for Trump than pre-election polling would indicate.

More specifically, this doesn't appear to have happened; the Trump campaign fundraised on that idea, but didn't appear willing to make the same bold claims in actual court.

I have less than zero interest in the legal ineptitude of Trump's legal team; Trump selects for loyalty, not competence, which is understandable but has predictable consequences. The various factors I've mentioned have long been confirmed, regardless of Team Trump's (in)ability to navigate hostile systems.

Okay, but why do you think that "poll watchers were removed", since the only claims to that effect came from incompetent Trump followers who then recanted?

They're not the only source. This has been debated for two years now, and the information is available; I'm genuinely not going to bother rearguing it with you here.

Fair enough but if that's so I'm going to choose not to be convinced by you.

I'm not attempting to convince you or anyone else; as I noted, this has been debated over and over for two years now. The matter is settled, the lines are drawn, and persuasion is no longer a worthwhile goal nor even an achievable one. I'm not reaching out, I'm declaring where I stand, in the hope that it can offer others some small glimpse into the current nature of our society.

You do not need to agree 2020 was illegitimate. I, and tens of millions of people, are convinced it was. You have to deal with us one way or another.

That just sounds like what someone would say if they didn't have a convincing argument. If you had a convincing argument it'd be easier to just use it than grandstand over your refusal to use it.

You were open to being convinced here?

Humor us, this is the right place to do it after all.

If I say 'no' there is no force on heaven or earth that can change my mind.

That seems antithetical to rationalism, no?

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