site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30623 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

God isn't real, of course, and I doubt Vivek thinks so either. Hinduism is remarkably tolerant of atheism.

As a sidenote, I've been impressed by him. I think his willingness to be ruthlessly realistic about limits to America's commitments to Taiwan is a breath of fresh air. Reminds me of 2016 Trump. I still think Ye Olde Orange Man is a clear favorite, but if he gets barred from running due to legal issues, I think Vivek is a top contender. I wouldn't call him very charismatic, but he at least isn't robotic like DeSantis and unlike DeSantis, his campaign feels less controlled by donors and GOPe activists.

I think Trump's secret was that he intuitively understood that GOP conventional wisdom isn't actually that popular among the grassroots and so breaking with it hardly carries punishment with the voters - quite the contrary, in fact. If Vivek grasps the same fundamental truth then he has a very good shot.

God isn't real, of course, and I doubt Vivek thinks so either.

And so it begins. Second Great Internet Atheist War, exactly 20 years after the first one.

No idea if Vivek wanted it, but if he insists in returning to God talk of halcyon times of Bush admin, this is what he will get, together with second, even more crushing defeat.

And it was completely unneccessary, nothing about current material and cultural battles is about religion.

The other nine proposals lead to concrete political demands and actions, but what about this one?

"God is real", then what? Teach creationism intelligent design in schools?

If there was something good about Trump and Trumpism, it was dropping this futile and embarrassing stuff. Now you want to bring it back?

Just start your points with "America is great" or something similar. This will energize your base and enrage your enemies much more.

"God is real", then what? Teach creationism intelligent design in schools?

It means ‘defend me, fellow monotheists, it’s not any more of a bridge that voting for a Jew’. Prejudice against East Indians and mistrust of the few remaining actual believing pagans(which is what Hindus are, far more so than the fools dancing naked and calling themselves pagans) are things he has to deal with, even if as I suspect his real goal is to secure a powerful minister without portfolio position in a second trump admin. The upper 1/3 of the GOP base- where he gets his support from- is basically all practicing Christian and have a formal doctrinal commitment to seeing Hindus as savages that would be burning widows to appease the cattle they worship if the British hadn’t stopped it and casting himself as a monotheist is a way to turn that from outgroup to weird fargroup.

He's trying to play to the Republican base which is still very Christian. He wants to paint himself as a monotheist like them, not some polytheistic animal worshiper like how most Christians view Hindus. Maybe he would be better off ignoring it, but he thinks it's important to be ahead on this issue.

Pence still has 4-5% of the vote. Which might be the best represtantitive of the nice Christian vote.

Trump voters do seem to be somewhat post-Christian. The ones who grew up Christian but quit going to church.

Some of my current threads I believe have a bit of how do I deal with racial gaps and lbtq while being a nice Christian.

Pence is not popular among the ‘Christian’ vote, any more than among any other voters.

He's going to be savaged by also-rans in the debates. "Vivec, since you decided to bring up religion, you think Jesus Christ is not our Lord and savior, don't you?"

I think his willingness to be ruthlessly realistic about limits to America's commitments to Taiwan is a breath of fresh air.

While he's honest about wanting to defend Taiwan only because of semiconductors, his claim that domestic manufacturing will supplant TSMC by 2028 seems patently absurd to me.

The only reason I’d be much more keen to keep Taiwan is the microchip issue. They’re making most of the high end chips and have had trouble moving those factories elsewhere. That makes Chinese control of Taiwan a big issue.

I do not know on Taiwan. Especially on his timeline. Overall I like protecting allies. At some point you do need to draw a line. I do think Ukraine has been the right line for us in Europe. If Ukraine is lost then the Baltics too. But Russia is very different than China. Russia is on 19th century ideology and clearly declining. China I disagree with but is still a functional power today. A lot will change by 2028 so no idea if his plan is right. But I do believe in the relatively free world.

They're not allies. They're satellites and subject states. 'Ally' implies an association with a being of the same order.

The only actual 'ally' of the US might be France. And look at their reputation - they're accusing the Feds of racial subversion of their laicité and have generally been very unsupportive of US war effort.

France, Japan, Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia- all maintain very independent foreign policies while being firmly US Allies. So does, albeit more bumpily, Israel.

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