site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36042 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 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.

You might be confusing Trump and the populist right with Liz Cheney.

Trump didn't even manage to run the party when he was president. Trump really didn't deliver on much, where is the wall? Two years of republican presidency and congress under Trump and not much to show for it. Trump could make funny tweets until he got banned but when it comes down to it it is the Liz Cheney types that run the show.

Trump didn't even manage to run the party when he was president.

Of course not, you seem to be forgetting that we are talking about Republicans and not Democrats. The Republican party is specifically organized in such a way no one candidate can "run the party". That decentralization of power is one of republicanism's core tenets and also the primary reason that an "insurgent" candidate like Trump could even win the nomination first place.

In an alternate universe where the Republican party was organized along more "democratic lines" Jeb would have crushed both Trump and Cruz under his boot-heel with the same ease that Clinton crushed Sanders under hers.

Nah, the issue was that Hillary was near the median Democrat's views on things, plus she was well known, while Jeb was far to the left of the median Republican primary voter. Ironically, Citizen's United has been terrible for the GOP Establishment, because any weirdo billionaire with wacky views can back a candidate in a primary.

Ironically, Citizen's United has been terrible for the GOP Establishment, because any weirdo billionaire with wacky views can back a candidate in a primary.

...and from the perspective of a lot of ordinary Republicans this is a feature rather than a bug. Which part of the "decentralization of power is one of republicanism's core tenets" bit did you not understand?

Citizens United was about corporate independent expenditures, not individual.

Recall that the question you were answering is premised on the Trump wing beating the Cheney wing. You are now saying the Trump wing has not successfully beaten the Cheney wing yet.

That's true, but kind of a non sequitur.

Three SCOTUS judges. Although they'll certainly rule mostly in ways favorable to the Cheney wing, things like Roe are also very much not what the Republican elite care about.

Overall, though, you're right: Trump was wildly ineffective. Which is why lazy and undisciplined isn't what you want if there's a better alternative on offer (I suspect most of the populist right would say there wasn't an alternative.)

Three SCOTUS judges. Although they'll certainly rule mostly in ways favorable to the Cheney wing, things like Roe are also very much not what the Republican elite care about.

The three SCOTUS judges were much more an accomplishment of McConnell and the FedSoc than of Trump. It's just that the only thing the Trumpist wing of the party hates more than Democrats is Mitch McConnell, so he's conveniently left out of that part of the narrative.

No. McConnell was centrally important in getting Trump's nominees confirmed, and Leonard Leo from the FedSoc was in charge of vetting the nominations, but it was Trump that put Leo in charge and selected candidates from Leo's short list. Putting Leo in charge of judicial nominations was a key part of Trump's strategy to attract the votes of the Republican base--which was not part of his initial core support--to the benefit of both.

Trump will get credit for the actions of his Supreme Court appointments as part of his legacy, just like every other President. He also deserves this credit no less than any other President, as Leo was his choice to vet nominations, and Trump himself decided which candidates made the final cut.

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