site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31620 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And how does the segment deal with the tapes, especially the "smoking gun" tape, in which Nixon is heard endorsing the coverup. Here is what Wikipedia says about it:

Once the "Smoking Gun" transcript was made public, Nixon's political support practically vanished. The ten Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee who had voted against impeachment in committee announced that they would now vote for impeachment once the matter reached the House floor. He lacked substantial support in the Senate as well; Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott estimated that no more than 15 senators were willing to even consider acquittal. Facing certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction in the Senate, Nixon announced his resignation on the evening of Thursday, August 8, 1974, effective as of noon the next day.

And, to be clear, the theory is that a bunch of Nixon's closest aides -- H.R. Haldeman (WH Chief of Staff), John Ehrlichman (Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs), John Dean (White House counsel), Jeb Magruder (chair of the Committee to Reelect the President), John Mitchell (Attorney General) --conspired against him, and exposed themselves to criminal liability (all served time, and the lawyers among them were disbarred), for the purpose of what, exactly?

And, by the way, I haven't seen the segment, but "he tried to keep the government subordinate to its notional head" strikes me as very possibly spin on pushback to a guy who claimed, "If the President does it, it isn't illegal."

And, by the way, I haven't seen the segment, but "he tried to keep the government subordinate to its notional head" strikes me as very possibly spin on pushback to a guy who claimed, "If the President does it, it isn't illegal."

It usually wasn't, at least in the past. I'm not suggesting Nixon didn't order the surveillance.

There's some evidence that we know of that at least LBJ did the same with Goldwater campaign, and there were probably other incidents too.

But that the surveillance was cocked up on purpose by factions in state institutions who wanted him gone, and he was probably made to look even worse in the process.

I'm not sure that "we later found out that LBJ did it, too" is much of a defense, but regardless, it wasn't just the surveillance; it was the coverup. That was the basis for Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, and that was the article to which the "smoking gun" tape was relevant; after it was released, the ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who voted no on the articles of impeachment said that they would vote yes on Article 1 on the House floor.

And how does the segment deal with the tapes, especially the "smoking gun" tape, in which Nixon is heard endorsing the coverup.

I was listening to a podcast with Geoff Shepard and reading some of his book. Shepard was a very young, junior staffer in the Nixon White House who in the past years has done a great deal of archival research and released a revisionist book on Watergate in 2021. He is also the one who originally internally transcribed the "smoking gun" tape and coined that phrase when he listened to it, even though he was so junior he didn't actually know at the time what it was referring to. After doing his most recent research he says that the tape has been grossly misunderstood. What people think the "smoking gun" statement means is that Nixon knew about the break-in and was trying to order government officials to stop the investigation. What it actually was, was that the FBI was going to interview two specific people were linked with soliciting campaign donations from prominent Democrats, and Nixon and his staff were trying to protect the secrecy of those donations (because a Democrat would be bad for the Democrats reputation if it was known they had donated to Nixon). The two people ended up getting interviewed anyways two weeks later and were not found to have any criminally involvement. The "smoking gun" does not show that Nixon knew about Watergate or that he was trying to stop the entire investigation.

and exposed themselves to criminal liability (all served time, and the lawyers among them were disbarred), for the purpose of what, exactly?

Shepard's take is that some of those who were actually more responsible for the break-in decided to side with the prosecutors and media establishment in taking down Nixon in order to get a better deal/reduced sentence.

The "smoking gun" does not show that Nixon knew about Watergate or that he was trying to stop the entire investigation.

Then why did Republicans who actually heard the tape think that it did? Why does the Nixon Foundation webpage say: " The release on August 5, 1974, of the June 23, 1972, tape (which was termed the “Smoking Gun”), appeared to undermine Nixon’s contention that he was not involved in the Watergate cover-up. The reaction to the tape caused Nixon’s remaining political support in Congress to collapse. Three days later, on August 8, 1974, he announced his resignation as president, effective at noon the next day."?

And, the claim is not that Nixon "knew about Watergate" beforehand; it is that he covered it up afterwards. And he certainly knew generally about the dirty tricks campaign.

Then why did Republicans who actually heard the tape think that it did? Why does the Nixon Foundation webpage say: " The release on August 5, 1974, of the June 23, 1972, tape (which was termed the “Smoking Gun”), appeared to undermine Nixon’s contention that he was not involved in the Watergate cover-up.

It did "appear" to if you just take the quote out of its entire context and have it spun by hostile press and prosecutors. And that the time, even Republican Senators were more trusting in the establishment press, so that was enough to finally pull support for Nixon. Shepard's research on the full context of the quote is new research, not something that was known at the time.

It did "appear" to if you just take the quote out of its entire context and have it spun by hostile press and prosecutors. And that the time, even Republican Senators were more trusting in the establishment press

The Republicans in question almost certainly listened to the actual tapes, or read the transcripts, which were publicly released

I haven’t watched the tape but the idea that Nixon was implicated in a political scandal and a palace coup are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible there are many such incidents that never see the light of day but did here.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. But, given the amount of evidence of actual wrongdoing -- evidence that members of his own party felt merited removal from office -- the idea that his resignation was caused by a coup rather than by his own misconduct seems to be a rather heavy lift.

I think to a certain extent it was a sign of the times. Watergate seems like child’s play compared to the scandals of the last twenty years

Edit: I have zero real thoughts here. Just pointing out they need not be mutually exclusive. Never really looked into this particular line of inquiry.

I don't know about child's play, given the burglaries (including the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's (who leaked the Pentagon Papers) psychiatrist, and of course the DNC headquarters) , and the fact that the wife of the former Attorney General is essentially kidnapped to prevent her from talking to the press.

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