site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30072 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I didn't watch the debate (mostly because it's in America, I'm not, and I didn't know it was on last night) but reading the accounts of it on our national broadcasting service, I'm laughing and kicking myself for missing this.

The serious bit - I think Mike Pence's only chance is to sell himself as the Defender Of Democracy over the whole Jan6th kerfuffle. The only problem there is (a) the Democrats will still paint him as Second Next To Hitler because of being Trump's VP and his conservative, Christian, views and (b) for the Trump and don't support Trump personally but love how he drives the libs wild types, he's now someone who's a turncoat. He's not really able to portray himself as reining in or holding back Trump, and even if he did follow the rules and resist the pressure, that's not a strong enough image of him to overcome the negatives.

The semi-serious part - DeSantis may be holding back waiting to see who will emerge as the contender against him and then go on the attack, but I still think this was the wrong election for him and waiting for 2028 (if God spares us all) would have been better. I know the argument for going now, while he has momentum going, and that waiting will just dissipate anything he has built up but my opinion is that taking on Trump right now is the wrong thing to do. Better for him to wait until Trump really is out of the running and done with, and let the Culture War cool down a little. If there is a backlash against woke starting, he'd be better positioned next time to take advantage of that by building up more wins as Governor of Florida. In 2028 he will still only be 52, young enough to run. By running now, I think he's going to be the new Mitt Romney: shot his bolt and no chance later.

Abortion, and they're all trying to shuffle around that. Cue Nikki Haley leaving herself wide open for the view, expressed on here as well, that if pro-lifers reeeeellly believed it was murder, they'd put the woman in jail, and so if they don't, that means they don't reeeeellly believe it's taking a human life, it's reeeellly about punishing women for exercising their sexuality:

"Can't we all agree that we're not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?" said Ms Haley, the only woman on the debate stage. "Let's treat this like a respectful issue that it is and humanise the situation and stop demonising that situation."

That's not going to help her; the pro-choice side will still hate her for supporting any kind of limitation on abortion and paint her as a gender traitor etc. and if she looks to be weakening or mushy on the pro-life side, then that loses her support there. I'd kinda like to see Nikki selected as again, it would be a difficult angle of attack for the Democrats to go after a minority-descent woman after all the "vote for the First Female Ever", but they'd go for her on social issues like abortion I suppose.

Now the fun part. Oh Vivek, I had no idea you were so feisty! 😁

Mr Trump had a fierce defender in Mr Ramaswamy, who called him "the best president of the 21st century" and vowed to pardon him if he is convicted of federal crimes.

I almost want to see him be the serious contender, because I do want to see the Democrats grapple with trying to attack the Republican nominee without falling into the pit of accusations of racism or attacking a minority person. While he is rich, cis, het and male, he's not white or Christian, so that removes an angle of attack. I guess they would have to hammer on the "rich entrepreneur who doesn't care about the poor and sick", there's a mini-maybe scandal on his Wikipedia page about boosting and hyping an Alzheimer's drug, cashing in and getting out before the thing tanked (as expected because GlaxoSmithKline had sold it off as a no-hoper):

In 2015, Ramaswamy raised $360 million for the Roivant subsidiary Axovant Sciences in an attempt to market intepirdine as a drug for Alzheimer's disease. In December 2014, Axovant purchased the patent for intepirdine from GlaxoSmithKline (where the drug had failed four previous clinical trials) for $5 million, a small sum in the industry. ...Axovant became a "Wall Street darling" and raised $315 million in its IPO. ...Ramaswamy took a massive payout after selling a portion of his shares in Roivant to Viking Global Investors.

...In September 2017, the company announced that intepirdine had failed in its large clinical trial. The company's value plunged; it lost 75% in one day and continued to decline afterward. Shareholders who lost money included various institutional investors, such as the California State Teachers' Retirement System pension fund. Ramaswamy was insulated from much of Axovant's losses because he held his stake through Roivant. The company abandoned intepirdine. ...Axovant attempted to reinvent itself as a gene therapy company, but dissolved in 2023.

But right now? Trump is still the 800lb gorilla they have to wrassle before they can get the nomination.

I do want to see the Democrats grapple with trying to attack the Republican nominee without falling into the pit of accusations of racism or attacking a minority person.

When Larry Elder run in CA against the lily-white Newsom, it wasn't a problem at all. They just defined him as "blackface of white supremacy" and were done with it. You shouldn't assume their hangups about race and identity are anything that should be taken at face value, as sincere axioms sine qua non - of course they can declare a black person a literal racist hitler, if that's necessary to keep the power. And they've got many PhDs in racial studies who would be glad to explain to you, with abundant quotes from highly peer-reviewed sources, why it is a scientific fact.

That was California, though. "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown". Trying to do the same on the national stage and win over all the minority voters while you're simultaneously claiming to be the party of brown people while attacking a brown person might be a bit tougher.

Or maybe not - he's the wrong sort of brown person, Indian rather than Hispanic/Latinx.

Right on cue: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1694896172853293076

I guess there's one conclusion here: Vivek is serious enough candidate to qualify as literally Hitler. Which is a prerequisite for any Republican candidate of any importance since 1940s. So congrats to him on that.

And of course, it won't stop "moderates" from claiming that Reds just need to stop backing these loonies, and just compromise back to a "center" defined arbitrarily by their enemies.

Status independence or bust.

It's not surprising to be that Dems are claiming that again and again - "if only you nominated a normal non-extremist candidate, we wouldn't call him Hitler, but you always nominate Hitlers!". This is a simple and time-tested tactics - "we're not political or ideological, we are just defending common sense from those crazies". The oldest trick in the book. What is astonishing there are still people on the red side that fail to see through the con. How many years of this happening again and again, with literally every single candidate, one needs to understand the pattern?

The oldest trick in the book.

Why does it only work one way, though?

There was a comment yesterday about Democratic voters being motivated by Trump and by abortion rights, with voters not trusting Republicans to not write insane abortion laws. That's probably a reasonably accurate analysis. The necessary question, though, is whether that perception is due to the actual insanity of Trump and Republican abortion laws, or because of the perceptions of Trump and Republican abortion laws created by the Blue consensus machine.

"Moderates" want things to be normal and peaceful, and Blues can deny them normality and peace arbitrarily. Scott and other "moderate" blues often have stated how they want a "functional" Red establishment to moderate the crazier Blues. But what Red interest is provided in providing them that moderation? The moderate Blues have no interest in Red values at all, and will never concede to tolerating them if they don't absolutely have to. Providing such moderation just advances Blue dominance and further bricks Red interests out of any hope of actual power.

The relationship is abusive. The solution is, at best, to leave.

Why does it only work one way, though?

It doesn’t. Lots of people think Obama was a socialist.

As for why reds are generally less successful than blues at it, it’s because of who controls the media.

The necessary question, though, is whether that perception is due to the actual insanity of Trump and Republican abortion laws, or because of the perceptions of Trump and Republican abortion laws created by the Blue consensus machine.

One might, for example, compare the abortion laws promoted by Republicans with ones common in Europe. After all, European policies could not be made by insane MAGA Trumpsters? One could check how many countries practice "no limits up to the moment of birth" abortion, and for those that have term limits, what the average terms are and how they relate to Republican proposals. But the US mainstream press is largely completely disinterested in that discussion. Because it is almost completely owned by one tribe, and for that tribe it is more convenient to present any Republican policies as utter insanity which no normal people would ever discuss.

they want a "functional" Red establishment to moderate the crazier Blues

And I believe them. But when it comes to actually doing that, turns out that each move of the Reds to "cooperate" is met with vigorous "defect, defect, defect, defect!" on the Blue side. Try to make late terms abortion limited, by any reasonable term? Maybe let's try to find some middle ground here? Nope, no restrictions at all, Roe gives us this power and we intend to use it to the max. Well, how is that working for you? Try to find solution to a migration crisis? Nope, any border is racist, we'll refuse to follow the law and call it "sanctuary". I can hardly remember a moderate cooperative move for Republicans where it ended up with them not getting the shaft. What exactly is the point of keeping conceding? I'd get if it were in the interest of peace - this smells an awful lot of blackmail, but to heck with it, if we get peace - but there's no peace. It only gets worse.

Clarence Thomas grew up in crushing poverty in Jim Crow Georgia without indoor plumbing and he's the most popularly maligned man in Washington. Trust me, they'll find a way to attack the finance bro Brahmin with a history of shady pharma shenanigans.

I know the argument for going now, while he has momentum going, and that waiting will just dissipate anything he has built up

The other argument for going now is that Biden is just an incredibly weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout, and the only person who can almost certainly lose to him, and can inspire Dems to turn out, is Trump.

2028 will be a whole different ballgame, and the Dems currently have a shallow bench, but if Trump wins the nom, then Biden likely wins re-election, which means 4 more years for Democrats to attempt to shore up their electoral odds.

Oh, and for a fun bonus, if Trump wins the primary but loses the general in 2024, he is STILL ELIGIBLE TO RUN IN 2028, so if his health permits he very well could CONTINUE to be the 800 pound gorilla.

This seems to be a quandary, but not one that suggests waiting on the sidelines as the wise choice.

The other argument for going now is that Biden is just an incredibly weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout, and the only person who can almost certainly lose to him, and can inspire Dems to turn out, is Trump.

and further down the thread

The Democrat base is, to my perception, exceptionally weak right now.

If the American right genuinely thinks this, they are high on their own supply and deserve to lose. I am not American and don't see the vibes that you guys are relying on, but I can see the election results. Biden won in 2020 on a record high turnout - if that is "a weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout" then I want to see the kind of Dem landslide that would result if they find a merely mediocre candidate. Midterms and even more so special elections are all about base mobilisation (because of the generally low turnout) and the Democrats significantly overperformed in 2022, and are killing it in off-cycle elections so far this year.

I am guessing here (as I said, no access to the vibes) but it isn't hard to see two reasons why the D base should be unusually energised right now.

  1. January 6th, and more broadly Trump's attempt to remain in office despite losing the 2020 election. Even if Trump is not the nominee (and as far as I can see only a medical catastrophe or a SCOTUS decision that he is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th amendment can stop him), the R primary electorate seem determined to double down on this. From the perspective of anyone who thinks that the 2020 election was not, in fact, rigged, and that the Trump campaign knew this, 2024 is a Flight 93 election because the Republicans are no longer committed to the idea that a Republican president should leave office after losing an election.
  2. Dobbs. I have posted before pointing out that the history of countries other than the USA is that abortion is a sufficiently important issue that in countries where abortion is "on the table" for democratic politics, the median voter ends up getting what they want. The Republicans are more out of step with the medial voter on this issue, at just the time where Dobbs makes it a matter of democracy.

A few points:

I think you may be somewhat underestimating the impact that the COVID election law changes had on turnout. Democrats are typically low-effort voters, and so gained hugely from the expanded access. Not sure how many of those changes are still in effect, but something to find out.

Good points on Jan 6 and Dobbs. I think some who are immersed in the conservosphere forget just how big those points are to the rank-and-file voters.

Additionally, I think conservatives have a habit of underestimating just how many blue-tribers the country has at this point. Like sure, they're mostly in a few cities or whatever, but it's probably 65-75% of the population of the country by now. The red tribe is vastly outmanned currently, though demographic trends will shift it back in 80ish years or so barring major cultural or tech changes. Blue-triber conservatives, meanwhile, tend to forget that they functionally don't exist as far as democracy is concerned.

Umm… blue tribe is a cultural distinction undergoing ethnogenesis. Not a generic terms for the democrat’s base. It’s a minority of the country, more of one than the red tribe, it’s just that their preferred candidates semi permanently win the minority votes- even though many of those minorities have more culturally in common with the red tribe.

I disagree on a few core points: I understand blue tribe is their own thing separate from the Democratic party, hence my point about blue-tribe conservatives.

The majority of the country watches, listens to, eats, drinks, and generally has the values and preferences of blue-tribe. First generation immigrants do not, but second-generation do by a massive margin. Perhaps the one major exception is LGBT issues, but that does not disqualify them completely.

Minorities may have a fewmajor cultural differences with blue tribe, but they align far closer than they do to red tribe. Immigrants typically are not at all supporters of the small-government, pro-gun, pro-christianity, pro-self-sustainability, pro-private-property-rights, anti-elitist, anti-intellectualist value set of the red tribe. AADS are probably the closest match, but they try very hard to signal that they are not of the red tribe, and red tribe does the same in return.

Do minority groups behave exactly the same as blue-tribe whites? No, but they aren't meant to. Many cultural groups have different roles for different classes of people, and blue-tribe is no exception.

1.) Eh, it's not that. For one, we saw big-time turnout in the 2020 election from both sides. Ya' know, the whole Trump gained x million votes that his supporters like to crow about. Ironically, the Right, by eschewing mail-in voting has fallen for the same false idea that my fellow lefties fall for, that all non-voters are just lefties who refuse to vote, when in reality, most non-voters are either people who truly don't care or are weirdos with deeply right and left-leaning view (like, actually deeply believing abortion is murder, but also that we should have single-payer health care), and thus, not voting for anybody.

What's actually changed is the type of voter each party has. Well the idea that the Democrat's are now the party of the elite is overblown by people who dislike the Democratic Party (and this include a group of leftists), it is true there is a shift that a group of low-turnout voters moved over the GOP, while high-turnout suburban voters moved over to the Democrat's, and that's actually one of the big reasons for the overperformance of the Democrat's in the midterms and in basically every special election.

As people have joked about before, there are McCain/Romney voters who in 2036 will be full-throated behind the AOC/Beto ticket.

2.) I agree with that number, if you go by the definition of Red Tribe this website seems to use, which would not include people like some of Trump's closest advisors. But, I do agree this is substantively a center-left country, and a few lucky EV wins (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016) along with great timing on SC Judges dying have given right-leaning people an overrated view of their own support within the country, and we're seeing this in backlash to Dobbs.

Like, on the abortion issue, the basic thing is the median voter may not agree with an ultra pro-choice person like me on late-term abortions, but they have zero trust that the GOP will pass reasonable laws, and it doesn't help every single Republican politician has suddenly decided to love federalism after spending decades talking about the need for national abortion bans.

But, I do agree this is substantively a center-left country, and a few lucky EV wins (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016) along with great timing on SC Judges dying have given right-leaning people an overrated view of their own support within the country

Only ever paying attention to Presidential elections is going to give you a really warped view of the country and the electorate.

First: if you think the US was a center-left country in 2000, you're just lost. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Second: Republicans controlled at least one chamber in 39 out of 50 state legislatures in 2016 and had 31 governorships (and would win 3 more that year). The US was still a center right ght country in 2016, it's just that the Trump years have caused a lot of center-right people to question their convictions just enough to be willing to vote for what at least looks like a sane Democrat over Trump or a Trump affiliated Republican.

I don't see Dem voters turning out for Biden against Trump but not for Biden against DeSantis, because of all the scaremongering (I mean, advisories about 'don't travel to Florida if you're black or gay'?)

Four years on, I could see DeSantis taking on Newsom (I'm wincing as I type that, the beige versus the beige Clash of the Hairdos) with a good chance.

The whole question is that if someone other than Trump wins the nom, does Trump throw any weight behind them.

If he does, then I think they, particularly DeSantis, has a solid chance at winning with the GOP base, + Trump coalition, + dissatisfied independents in their corner.

The Democrat base is, to my perception, exceptionally weak right now.

The problem for Trump is that he energizes Dems AND alienates some % of the GOP and independents, and thus is the one guy that might bring out Dem voters without similarly engaging the GOP and independent coalition.

I admit I cannot see what Trump can say or do to make his case to the nation for a second term.

Four years on, I could see DeSantis taking on Newsom

The main positive there is that it could be a decent revisitation of the different approaches to Covid mitigation, and maybe we as a nation can actually demonstrate a preference. But having that conversation 8 years after the fact is far too late, if you ask me.

I think you also need to run when you can run. And being number 2 poll position the last few years meant it was time to take a run.

Also Trumps not going anywhere anytime soon. We will have a Trump in the primary for the next 20 maybe 40 years. If Trump wins POTUS you’ve got Donald Jr in 2028. Or Ivanka. Potentially even Kushner. I was going to say surprisingly we’ve never had this before. But the last 30 years Bush and Clinton’s stuck around.

If Trump squeaks a victory in 2024 I think Kushner would be an entertaining development. What would leftist Jews do? As far as I know the Jews have never had one of their own in the seat of power in a major country (besides Israel). Zelensky in Ukraine is the only one I can name in a European society.

Kushner has no chance. He isn't very bright or charismatic.

Wow, it’s almost like the shadowy class consciousness is overstated.

Disraeli would be your guy. Technically converted in childhood, but, you know.

There were a couple of Jewish PMs in early 20th century Italy, and iirc one in interwar France.

We will have a Trump in the primary for the next 20 maybe 40 years.

The life expectancy of a 77-year-old male is 9.3 years.

The probability he dies in the next 10 years is 45.6%.

The probability he dies in the 5 years after that is 51%.

"a trump" meaning counting his kids

Those probabilities count those who are on deaths door. Not someone whose still active and still mentally lucid.

Though I think it was fairly obvious a chose “a Trump” and not “Trump” then said 40 years and talked about his children to mean that he will have Trump incumbency for a while. If he wins 2024 you just run Trump Jr in 2028 with Sr. still running rallies. And probably living in the White House if they would win 2028.

Though I think it was fairly obvious a chose “a Trump” and not “Trump” then said 40 years and talked about his children to mean that he will have Trump incumbency for a while

Fair enough, my bad.

Trump seems to have an very good genetics, and his father lived to 93. So I'd give a food chance of him making to 90. Past that it all depends on how good the medicine gets in the meantime...

He has a few kids that could act as his blood boy (I apologize for putting that thought in your head)

The joke re; blood boys is that it's dilution of old plasma that helps according to more research.

All you need to get the effect is donate plasma. Or so it seems from the experiments on mice.

How many of those are 300 240 lbs?

I’ve been morbidly curious about this ever since he took office. The best medicine on the planet handled his COVID alright, but I’m not sure how much can be done in the case of heart failures.

He isn't 300 lbs. 250 maybe.

Oh, I guess you’re right. 245 as of his last White House physical, and he claims to have lost some since then.

The Fulton county jail says he’s 215 pounds.

I ran into that part, too, via a WaPo article. But it immediately went into some bizarre speculation about systemic bias underestimates of other defendants' weights, so I wasn't sure how seriously to take it.

More comments

Benjamin Disraeli, British PM and founder of modern British conservatism :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli

With the caveat he was baptized at 12 but ethnically Jewish.

if pro-lifers reeeeellly believed it was murder, they'd put the woman in jail, and so if they don't, that means they don't reeeeellly believe it's taking a human life, it's reeeellly about punishing women for exercising their sexuality

I think this is arguably a form of what Scott called the non-central fallacy, aka "the worst argument in the world". There are plenty of instances of taking a life that aren't generally or universally reckoned to be murder (self-defense most obviously, but also killings in war, assisted suicides). Likewise, we understand there to be different moral shades attached to murder; many would choose not to incarcerate a domestic abuse victim who kills her spouse, for example (depending on circumstances). I think it's perfectly consistent to say that abortion is taking a life or even a form of murder without committing to the idea that women or doctors who perform it should be incarcerated.

But even on here we have had people putting forward "I can't understand why if pro-lifers are serious they don't want the woman imprisoned" argument, so it clearly works for a sub-set of pro-choice or people who could be persuaded to vote on abortion 'rights'. They don't really mean it, it's all about control and imposing their religious zealot bigot morality on others.

Look at the outrage over the woman in Britain who lied to obtain medical abortion pills to terminate her pregnancy well into viability and over the legal limits and was sent to prison for committing a criminal offence. It was only a 'late-term abortion' and shows the need for decriminalisation and doing away with archaic legislation. Now law-breaking is no reason to condemn the 'safe, legal and rare' late term abortion (which we've been told is not something that ever happens and is not the correct term to use):

The mother of three had admitted illegally procuring her own abortion when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant during the COVID pandemic.

The termination was eight to 10 weeks later than the 24-week legal period for having an abortion in England, Scotland and Wales.

Following the Court of Appeal ruling, Labour MP Stella Creasy said: "The relief that this woman can go home to be with her children is tempered by the knowledge there are more cases to come where women in England being prosecuted and investigated for having abortions under this archaic legislation.

"That's why we need decrim now."

The case has galvanised the pro-abortion movement.

Last month, thousands of abortion rights activists marched from the Royal Courts of Justice to Whitehall, demanding an end to the criminalisation of abortion, following Foster's sentencing.

Clare Murphy, chief executive of the BPAS, said on Tuesday that she "echoes the judges' statements".

She said the court had "recognised that this cruel, antiquated law does not reflect the values of society today" and urged parliament to decriminalise abortion as a "matter of urgency".

I'm only half-joking when I say next it'll be "decriminalise infanticide now".

I'm only half-joking when I say next it'll be "decriminalise infanticide now".

There have been straws in the wind for quite some time:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Proposal+to+decriminalise+infanticide+in+the+UK-a0126316373

https://www.liveaction.org/news/maryland-decriminalize-infanticide-birth/

Going back to the 19th century, Jeremy Bentham argued that infanticide should be decriminalised, since it couldn't always be prevented, and so one could only reduce the harms involved.

The crazy thing to me is how he persuaded investors to hand him $400m to develop a drug he bought for $5m that had failed four consecutive clinical trials at GSK. Four! Yeah yeah, due diligence at big funds is nonexistent but even so, that this didn’t raise eyebrows (or that he had a good spiel when they brought it up) is actually impressive.

I almost want to see him be the serious contender, because I do want to see the Democrats grapple with trying to attack the Republican nominee without falling into the pit of accusations of racism or attacking a minority person.

Look at Sunak (or Patel, or Braverman) in the UK; Indians are already whites in the Anglo countries, the left just goes on as it did.

The crazy thing to me is how he persuaded investors to hand him $400m to develop a drug he bought for $5m that had failed four consecutive clinical trials at GSK.

Fast talking, enough bafflegab about biotechnological improvements, and people willing to throw money at anything at the time - look how Elizabeth Holmes funded Theranos even though it should have been clear she couldn't do what she claimed. 'GSK are too big and too spread out over a whole range of possible drugs, we can instead focus everything on this one drug and get it through'.

Indians (and other Asians) are whites when it comes to the spoils system run by elites, but not when it comes to anything that has to be approved of by the masses. Asians won't easily get into Harvard, because the masses don't get to decide who gets into Harvard, but anything which requires telling voters that an Asian is white isn't going to work very well. The closest the left can get is claiming that the Asian is some kind of Uncle Tom, which is related, but not quite the same.

(The UK may be different on this; I don't know.)

Perhaps Vivek is the master dealmaker that Trump styles himself to be.

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