site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26881 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Somewhat uniquely it seems, I'm finding these events to be a white pill. So despite the complete abnegation of the right's political class to audit the 2020 election, its plebians showed up to carry the banner as far as they could. Of course they lost every possible tactical battle (no recount, no trump, were shot to death on tv, persecuted, humiliated, brutalized) they may have won the strategic war in terms of what could have possibly been achieved on that day to set the foundation for change.

First, the brouhaha of the protest forced the hand of the establishment into doubling down on the righteousness of an election where procedure was at best a complete aberration. The bodies are buried all over the place here, and many actors have credible knowledge that can tell you where to dig them up. In essence a now much larger faction of the left's power players are vulnerable to a special commission into election corruption. That's a completely legitimate superweapon that might not be picked up by yesterday's or today's congress, maybe not even tomorrow's either. But the threat of it is certainly a bargaining chip from here on out to encourage compromise. Just like how D's like to think out loud about court packing when they want to influence decisions.

Second, the official legal system now has blood on its hands too. Other means of control - riots, lockdowns, and mandates - were plausibly deniable from the court system's responsibility. Not so here; every obscure legal trick trotted out, every partisan and prejudicial comment is now on record. And now the face of this chicanery is a charismatic black man being held for decades on purported terrorism charges, but where its rather obvious even to causal international observers that he's more a political prisoner. Wait, haven't we seen this one already?

Finally, for as dumb as the right can be, it seems like they learned a lot from this action. They saw their enemy utilize their advanced weapon systems on what was at best a light expeditionary force. As an insurgent, you must not funnel into your opponent's strength. What those strengths are, and an instinct for the warning signs that indicate they are incoming is much better understood and communicated than it was before.

There's something that feels desperate and weak about the establishment response to Jan6 and Canadian truckers protest. Let's not get carried away and say we've got 'em right where we want 'em, just yet. But somehow, someway, a bunch of boomers, e-grifters and one or two shamans have made every branch of government in DC role around in the mud with them. I respect the great sacrifice many are now paying for to win this outcome and think their actions will be seen in the long view as extremely beneficial.

This is cope; you don't win by losing. The establishment(s) showed strength and ruthlessness with its response to January 6 and the Canadian trucker protest. You won't see major right-wing protests again in either country.

But there was no way a protest could "win" that day, the entire machine had already lined up behind a predetermined outcome. They could certainly have lost by going too far with the LARP but they didn't.

The main thing they could win is a public, well documented grievance. This has been difficult for the right because it suffers the death of a thousand cuts from third parties that can never be tied directly to the Dems. The grievance is useful when the system falls into crisis, it will naturally seek "reform" to reach a new equilibrium, and that involves the establishment feeding one of their factions to the crocodile, namely the parties responsible for the grievance. For example, an ordinary Joe might wonder "where did this new coronavirus come from?" as his life is completely upended in the Spring of 2020 (crisis). You don't want to answer that question, so you pull a grievance - "there are childrens bones under the school!" - feed some churches to the crocodile, reform, equilibrium, order restored.

This response to Jan6 has also created a highly useful as a Motte and Bailey: treatment of Jan6 prisoners and Fed infiltration is the motte, electoral corruption is the bailey. Vivek is now using this tactic: although he has not ventured into the bailey (AFAICT) he is establishing himself in a very reasonable and sympathetic motte.

Of course they lost every possible tactical battle (no recount, no trump, were shot to death on tv, persecuted, humiliated, brutalized)

It's actually even worse than that. Sometime not a long time ago, I think on the 20th anniversary of 9/11, George Bush Jr. gave a speech at the memorial site of the Flight 93 crash, and used that occasion to specifically condemn Ashli Babbit as a dangerous right-wing extremist terrorist, and with that she condemned and dishonored a woman who volunteered to the army after 9/11 because she wanted to answer his patriotic call to action. This means she was duped by, and driven into debt bondage by, and eventually shot dead by the Deep State, and she did all this in the belief that she was a patriot. This is where we're at. (I've heard this on a right-wing dissident podcast.)

This speech?

As a nation, our adjustments have been profound. Many Americans struggled to understand why an enemy would hate us with such zeal. The security measures incorporated into our lives are both sources of comfort and reminders of our vulnerability. And we have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them.

That’s as close as he gets to calling her out. It’s vague enough that it could be referring to BLM riots, too! A rather vanilla call for unity.

I don’t think “hey, trashing government buildings is bad” makes for a very hot take. Especially not from the guy who ushered in our current security state.

It’s vague enough that it could be referring to BLM riots, too!

Due to the reference to the disdain for pluralism and defilement of national symbols, I say it's rather clear he's referring to J6. But anyway, thanks for digging up the primary source. It seems I was somewhat mislead, but only somewhat.

Bush chose to signal his loyalty to the powers that be over the impotent right wing. Given his potential status as a pariah, it was probably a wise, and entirely self-serving, action.

But I doubt it was necessary. Isn't he basically a pensioner who paints portraits of dogs as a pastime? Who was ever going to accuse him of being tied to J6 protesters in any way? What does he have to lose, or prove?

Social shunning. My impression is that most people in the big leagues would lose most of their social connections if they ever said or did something that goes against the grain too far. Money isn't really the focus for most when you're that high up, it's getting to sit at the Cool Kids Table 😎.

This is exactly my point: J6 got GWB to "disrespect the troops". Respect for troops was the single political legitimacy card that guy had left when he left office. And he just used it up...for that.

Think about British police in India, or Alabama police swinging their clubs in the 60s. Sure the police won physically. And yes the protestors had more sympathetic backing and portrayal in the media than MAGA does. But the major source of legitimacy for British rule in a colony like India was that their administrative services were considered far more restrained and civilized than anything a third world country like India could muster on its own. Gandhi's activism forced that frame to break, revealing savagery where cool competence was assumed by most of the public. Babbit likewise did something almost impossible, made the shooting on an unarmed white woman by a black guy the lead story on CNN for weeks (something there had been a lot of but never mentioned, or if so only briefly then memoryholed). And they had to figure out how to get their audience to cheer it on.

If you want a white pill: Babbit getting shot on the Capitol steps easily did one thousand times as much to advance her values then getting blown up in Kabul would have done.

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