site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29444 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Or, to put it another way: what would it take to change your mind?

A: It not taking this long. B: something more than hearsay. or C: the FBI acting like insurrection and/or mishandling classified information were a serious offence when it wasn't the opposition candidate's ox who was getting gored.

As I was telling @AshLael the fundamental problem is that this is very clearly an issue of "rules for thee and not for me". If we are we going after Trump because he mishandled of classified material, why aren't Clinton and her staff being prosecuted? If we are we going after him for peddling influence/colluding with foreign interests, why isn't Biden? If we're going after him for inciting insurrection and subverting the electoral process why aren't Obama, Fienstien, Waters, and all the other DNC elected officials who provided aid and comfort to the CHAZ/CHOP and BLM riots getting put through the wringer?

The answer is simple, the FBI/DoJ is in the tank for the democratic party establishment and has been since the days of Hoover. You didn't think they named their headquarters building after a cross-dressing political hitman by accident did you?

I think there's an important distinction between "choosing who to prosecute because of political loyalties" and "choosing when to prosecute them in order to affect news cycles". There are examples of behaviour similar to the latter from the Blue Tribe (the coverup of Hunter Biden's laptop, and the postponement of the vaccine announcement until after the election), but "Hillary Clinton wasn't arrested" isn't especially pertinent here.

I don't see how anyone remotely intelligent could make this argument in good faith. It is not only "especially pertinent", it's the point.

You're not giving me a lot to go on, but at a wild guess I'm going to assume your unstated thought process is something along the lines of "both are malfeasance for political gain". If I've made a mistake here, please point to it.

My point is that these things don't necessarily feel identical to the person doing them. To someone sufficiently mindkilled, the "who to prosecute" bias doesn't feel like a bias; it feels like normal prosecutorial discretion where you go after the especially-bad people (but your sense of who's especially-bad is way off). On the other hand, the "when to prosecute" thing requires consciously paying attention to these kinds of Machiavellian factors.

Since the former can be done without the full mens rea required for the latter, it's not great evidence of the latter; there are people who will do the former but balk at doing the latter, because the former is much easier to justify to oneself. As I've said, though, there are examples of the latter actually happening, which would have supported your point better.

Please keep your focus to the argument rather than its host's intelligence.

I felt like I was being pretty charitable, and abiding by the spirit of the sub's rules regarding charity, by adhering to Hanlon's Razor.

Would you have been less inclined to moderate me had I gone with the alternative?

As I was telling @AshLael the fundamental problem is that this is very clearly an issue of "rules for thee and not for me". If we are we going after Trump because he mishandled of classified material, why aren't Clinton and her staff being prosecuted?

Because for various (good) reasons the legal system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person. Clinton is probably more corrupt than Trump IMO, but she's also less sloppy and is better at not leaving incontrovertible proof lying around.

Clinton is probably more corrupt than Trump IMO, but she's also less sloppy and is better at not leaving incontrovertible proof lying around.

Do we really want somebody who is corrupt, but good at covering up their corruption, in power, though? If we have to have a corrupt person, at least someone who is sloppy and will get caught might be a better choice.

I mean, I'd prefer someone who doesn't do corruption to either of them. Mike Pence seems like a decent choice in that regard.

Clinton was far, far sloppier than Trump - but she was part of the elite and so her mistakes were simply covered up. Trump was substantially more careful than she was, it's just that she didn't actually need to be careful.

Because she unilaterally had her lawyers destroy the evidence. Spoiling evidence is generally a problem for the person who spoiled the evidence.

Also, because the government gave free immunity to her underlings instead of trying to get them to turn (unlike they are doing with Trump).

Clinton didn’t mind her Ps and Qs; she got help from the purported other side.

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