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.

Is this where we pretend that Trump didn't get the 2nd most votes in the history of the country, improving on his previous total by 11,000,000 votes?

Trump is remarkably good at motivating Republican voters. I would argue that the only thing he is better at is motivating Democrat voters, thus no longer being president.

I mean, the circumstances of being an incumbent widely perceived as mismanaging a generational crisis surely played some role in his ability to motivate democrats.

He motivated "Democrat" voters so much, they sometimes voted multiple times in different states! Truly historic rates of voter participation, but only in counties controlled by certain people using certain procedures. Neighboring counties not controlled by those people using those procedures didn't see that magical turn-out.

There are lots of reasons Donald Trump isn't president; you could likely put most of these under a "motivates Democrats" banner, but some specifics would be the illegal and unconstitutional ways in which elections were conducted in explicit contravention to election laws across dozens of states. The GOP, the courts, and the law were wholly useless in addressing this issue.

When I worked in politics, you could pretty much tell if the GOP or Democrats would win an election by basic turn-out numbers. DJT changed that dynamic where it's the opposite now. In the motivation game, Trump may motivate a minority of people into hysterics, but in sheer numbers Trump motivates his voters more than the opposite.

If they could cheat under Trump, they certainly can under Biden. So either way, if Trump runs, he loses, whether it's fair and square or a tipping of the scales.

The 2020 election was closer than the 2016 election. Illegal changes made to election law and procedures by executive fiat justified by "the pandemic" no longer exist in most places with courts already ruling against those changes. The pandemic is not around to justify vast mobilization of state power and cowardice on the part of courts. The State operating at peak power prohibiting in-person interaction and mobilization (unless race riots ofc) and forcing people into manipulated online spaces isn't around anymore, either.

The state cashed in a whole lot of single-use plays in order to get Trump, and even with all of that and more, the election came down to tens of thousands of votes in a few states. It came down to a judge in any of 5 states allowing a filed election contest to be heard or even a slight peek at those definitely legitimate ballot signatures.

Could Trump run and lose? Sure, and it will take another vast and more ridiculous fraud campaign. The reason Trump is being indicted isn't because the regime is sure he's going to run and lose, it's because they know he could win and he's dangerous to that regime.

Another Trump run and subsequent obvious fraud by the regime has its own benefits. And in comparison to what? Without Trump, the GOP will lose anyway. And even if that's not true, I don't see how a Trump-less GOP victory would benefit rightwing politics in any way.

The 2020 election was closer than the 2016 election.

Measured how?

It came down to a judge in any of 5 states allowing a filed election contest to be heard or even a slight peek at those definitely legitimate ballot signatures.

Ah, I see. Since literally every attempt on /r/TheMotte and here to provide a shred of solid evidence of fraud has been thoroughly debunked every single time, we've come back around to "just repeat things a bunch and they'll become true."

Could Trump run and lose? Sure, and it will take another vast and more ridiculous fraud campaign.

Or, you know, Trump not being that popular. Which, if you look at the 2016 results, was actually always the case--Clinton was just an unusually bad candidate (combined 2 party vote share of only 94% in 2016).

measured by the difference in the counted votes needed to win the election

Since literally every attempt on /r/TheMotte and here to provide a shred of solid evidence of fraud has been thoroughly debunked every single time

literally, huh? Well then!

Could Trump run and lose? Sure, and it will take another vast and more ridiculous fraud campaign.

So is it your view that Trump simply having less support in the crucial states by election time is simply an inconceivable outcome?

one, no, which is why I acknowledge trump could lose

two, trump could have less support than now in crucial states and still win the presidency; trump could have less support than 2020 and still win the presidency

we're talking about states trump lost by ~10,000 votes when courts in those states have since ruled edit: 100,000+ in that election votes illegal election procedures and directives used in the 2020 election were illegal and the votes cast, counted, or cured, due to these illegal changes were well beyond the vote totals difference in the previous election (cases in both WI and PA)

Your original comment didn't acknowledge Trump could lose fairly though - 'it will take another vast and more ridiculous campaign' is what you said. What I'm driving at is whether you think just Trump losing is itself prima facie evidence for fraud.

when courts in those states have since ruled 100,000+ in that election votes illegal

Which rulings were these?

Having been systematically excluded from powerful institutions, widespread loss of trust in those institutions is a positive, not a negative. You know that trust in America's political system is going to be lower two years from now than it is today.

He motivated "Democrat" voters so much, they sometimes voted multiple times in different states!

This is a specific claim I haven't seen yet. Could you link the evidence?

trump's filed election contest in GA or one of the Look Ahead America Reports diving into permanent change of address flags

note that I am not claiming the people actually voted in multiple states, but that their voter registration was used in a state from which they permanently moved out of, and then they proceeded to vote in the state they moved to

Appreciate the link, thank you.

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