site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29716 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, it hurts Musk's credibility. The NYTs credibility is unassailable.

To echo what I said to @pointsandcorsi, I an amused by the implication that the NYT has credibility to assail.

I think it illustrates how different our worlds are, you're always here acting like "Epstien didn't kill himself" and "the NYT are a bunch of partisan hacks" are whacky, out-there, Alex Jones-tier takes when in my experience they are the popular consensus. I know you live in Manhattan but every time you make one of these comments I find myself biting back the urge to ask if you've actually met anyone who isn't a registered democrat or under the age of 70?

The NYT has credibility because they are among the definers of credibility. The truth doesn't matter; if you go against the NYT you're automatically wrong, among anyone who counts. Think of it like the BATF and machine guns. Sure, you know that a shoelace isn't a machine gun and I know a shoelace isn't a machine gun, but if the BATF says a shoelace is a machine gun it is, and anyone with a shoelace is liable for prosecution. And the prosecutors will prosecute and the judge will go along and so will the higher courts and no amount of pointing out that it's a shoelace will save you from jail time. And to add insult to injury, if and when all this commences, all those law-n-order conservatives who agreed that indeed a shoelace was not a machine gun will say "Well, what did you expect? You knew a shoelace was a machine gun, BATF said so." They don't actually believe a shoelace is a machine gun, but they believe in institutions and the institutions said it was.

Same with the NYT. What they say is truth will be taken as truth, by anyone who matters. Even if it's patently ridiculous.

And the prosecutors will prosecute and the judge will go along and so will the higher courts and no amount of pointing out that it's a shoelace will save you from jail time. And to add insult to injury, if and when all this commences, all those law-n-order conservatives who agreed that indeed a shoelace was not a machine gun will say "Well, what did you expect? You knew a shoelace was a machine gun, BATF said so."

Somehow I suspect that it is hyperbole and not what you actually believe, but I am not really sure.

use a shoelace to more effectively bump-fire a semi-auto rifle

note that it is distinct "shoelace is machine gun"

where pulling a trigger once results in multiple rounds being fired is technically making a "machine gun"

"triggering multiple guns at once in weird way counts as machine gun" is far more defensible and reasonable than "shoelace is machine gun"

(and yes, trying to legislate definition of things where border is fluid and with adverse groups will result in a lot of stupid shit, but less stupid than "shoelace is machine gun")

And you could almost imagine someone getting in trouble for having in their possession a semi-auto gun and a loose shoelace, because they could be readily assembled into a machinegun.

OK, that parts makes sense and I can easily imagine someone interpreting maximally evilly.

Why? He doesn't seem to be saying anything unreasonable.

Maybe should be more pessimistic, but I would bet that declaring shoelace to be machine gun would not pass. Declaring nonmachine gun as a machine gun? Likely.

Declaring shoelace as a machine gun? Would not reach court or would be squashed there.

What you don't realized but Hlynka does, is the shoelace thing isn't something I pulled out of my butt; it's a meme based on an actual BATF ruling. As for courts, what you're missing is the point here -- deference. What BATF says goes, even if it's crazy sauce. And one problem with conservatism is they accept the legitimacy of the institutions even when they are captured by their enemies. So there's no help there.

the shoelace thing isn't something I pulled out of my butt

I am definitely unaware

it's a meme based on an actual BATF ruling

What was the actual ruling? Have they ruled that actual shoelace was a machine gun?

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

They later changed their mind. But they've made other rulings which stretch the law (though not as much).

More comments

This is, to a large extent, self-referential. The NYT is always credible within the "mainstream" narrative because the NYT is a core part of the network of institutions that sets that narrative. But I've got scare quotes around "mainstream" because the NYT and allied outlets simply don't represent any sort of board social consensus anymore. They represent the official line of establishment Democrats, with space occasionally given to more extreme leftist positions to keep activist groups on-side. Their function is to align elites within these spaces and sell Blue Tribe normies on what those elites want.

Republican politicians and other explicitly right-wing public figures and organizations can already almost entirely ignore the NYT, because none of their supporters care what it says. Only 14% of Republicans and 27% of independents have confidence in mass media to report accurately (source).

The danger for "mainstream" media in Musk's Twitter takeover is that Twitter has deep reach among Blue Tribe normies. Musk is going to allow 'unapproved' narratives to spread to and among them, and these narratives will in many cases likely outcompete those coming from above. This could have the effect of seriously undermining the ability of Blue Tribe elites to sell any large constituency on their views, with obvious electoral consequences.

If that were actually true, then nobody would doubt the credibility of the NYT. But there are plenty who used to find them credible and no longer do. Whether Musk will cause more people to lose credence in the NYT remains to be seen, of course, but their credibility most certainly is not unassailable.

There are people who will tell you on a survey they doubt the credibility of the NYT. The next day they'll be credulously repeating whatever it is they read in the NYT and sneering at "Faux News".

Are you seriously asserting that nobody doubts the credibility of the NYT, or that they have not caused at least some people to lose trust in them?

Nobody who is anyone doubts the credibility of the NYT (obviously "deplorables" or "MAGA republicans" do), and the NYT (and mainstream media in general) has gained trust over the past few years even as they've gone more off the rails. For some reason COVID got everyone who was wavering back in the fold and then some.

Right-leaning and centrist political and business elites often doubt the NYT. Many regular people have NYT-incompatible views but simply don't pay enough attention to the NYT to notice.

The NYT is a product of today's (overwhelmingly blue tribe) cultural elites, so naturally they find it credible and reenforce this through the other organs of cultural production under their control. However, there's a huge amount that's not under their control, now including Twitter. They can refuse to grant these things status within their system, but people outside of that system have little reason to care.

Right-leaning and centrist political and business elites often doubt the NYT.

There are no such people.

Many regular people have NYT-incompatible views but simply don't pay enough attention to the NYT to notice.

But if they did, they would change their views to be compatible.

However, there's a huge amount that's not under their control, now including Twitter. They can refuse to grant these things status within their system, but people outside of that system have little reason to care.

Twitter is outside their control for now, until they recapture or destroy it (they can deny it ad revenue indefinitely). And you can't get outside their system, not in the US anyway. They control too much.

Republican politicians and Republican-donor business executives (for starters) all unquestioningly believe the official narrative according to the NYT?

Twitter ad boycotts don't actually seem to be going so well. Apple and Amazon, sometimes rated as the #1 and #2 brands in the world, have reportedly already resumed advertising, which is basically a green light for anyone to do so. Casually scrolling my timeline for two minutes with personalized ads turned off, I see ads for Hyundai, Kia, Chevron, Robinhood, StateFarm, a film called M3GAN (NBCUniversal), Hulu (also NBCUniversal), the NFL, ESPN, and Walmart.

Seeing NBCUniversal show up twice is pretty funny given that some of the dumbest anti-Musk rhetoric has come from their journalists. They literally can't even get the company they work for to not hand Musk money. Establishment journalists overestimate their power, and so do you.

"Nobody who is anyone" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting for you there. And moreover, it's moving the goalposts. You said "the NYT's credibility is unassailable", not "the NYT's credibility is unassailable among the elites".

Unless you're really prepared to bite the bullet and say that nobody doubts the credibility of the NYT, or that nobody has lost faith in them, then their credibility isn't unassailable. And while it may indeed be unassailable among cultural elites at this time, I don't for a moment believe it will always be so. If they keep burning credibility with the common man, sooner or later it will bleed over into the "anyone who is anyone" crowd as well.

The problem is the right has been completely unable to actually create a right-wing alternate to the NYT because there is no audience for that among the Right - it's all DailyWire/Brietbart pushing out the sensational stuff or the day or it's money-losing magazines being propped up by rich donors. There is the WSJ, but it seems unwilling to move beyond its place focusing on business news.

The actual problem is 90% of what the NYT is reliably truthful, even to an ardent right-winger.

I suspect actually that the right has been unable to create a right-wing equivalent of the NYT because that sort of centralized top-down narrative setting is a holdover from an earlier era. The natural means of narrative formation and spread today is social media. Traditionally structured media outlets can't hope to produce narratives as memetically fit as those honed on Twitter, so largely just write sensationalist stories built on top of those. It's not just the right; this describes younger media outlets on the left as well. Even the NYT itself is not immune to this. One now regularly sees echos of Twitter discourse in is coverage.

(All of this is why establishment journalists were so eager to place themselves or their ideological allies in positions that allowed them to influence what ideas could spread on social media, via "trust & safety" councils, official labeling of "misinformation," etc. and why many seem to be practically unraveling in response to Musk getting rid of these things.)

So was Pravda's. Now its name is synonymous with propaganda

Pravda was always synonymous with propaganda. There is no news in the Truth and no truth in the News.

Pravda's name was always synonymous with propaganda. Even inside the Soviet Union.

More so inside the Soviet Union than in America, though.

More likely to find a Pravda believer on the faculty at Yale than in Moscow.

Among who, though? Looking back on the USSR everyone wants to say "oh yeah we knew the whole time," but I call bullshit. I bet a sample of American opinions on NYT is similar to Soviets about Pravda in 1955. And when the NYT falls, whoever writes about it will do so in the same manner.

As Amadan has alluded to, it's one of those "those who know" kind of things. Sure, you can argue that a preference cascade happened and everyone flipped their opinions from what was clearly the opposite, but I personally choose to believe that the actual heart-of-hearts sentiment was indeed the opposite of what was publically-permissible to say pre-1991.

There were some naive people who took it seriously, but the disparity between propaganda and what your eyes saw was far, far greater than anything NYT ever wrote until the late Obama age decline.

Everyone else was simply afraid to speak up, because you had a permanent record* you couldn't check or dispute and were you known for saying stuff like that, it'd have ended noted there.

And your children would have zero hope of getting into university, and were you to persist and became an actual dissident, only the worst jobs would be available to you. If you persisted for years and were good at it - eventually the state would stop treating you like others and encourage you to leave the country.

*I'm assuming that they had, given it was done in satellite states.

Don't just "bet" on things that conveniently fit your worldview when you don't have an accompanying historical knowledge of the times.

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