site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   26123 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A lot of these people are simply in denial about how Obama treated republicans

I'm honestly not even sure what you're talking about. The story on /r/politics is that Obama's primary failure was working with Republicans too much.

That would be being in denial, yes.

Sorry, yes, I understand that. I'm saying I really have no idea what the other side to that story is.

Oh, ok.

To start with, I don't actually know where r-politics gets their "Obama was too eager to work with republicans" idea- when he had a choice not to work with republicans, he didn't. Like he started his time in office with an "elections have consequences, so no, I won't come your way at all" speech to republicans. Him being more moderate than he'd like to have been had more to do with his inability to win and keep large majorities; he had a trifecta for two years, and steadily lost support in both houses of congress during his entire term in office. "Watering down" the ACA was necessary to get it past blue doggers, not republicans, and you'll note that republicans didn't vote for it and there was a significant amount of procedural maneuvering to evade needing republican support at all. And sure, not making concessions to the opposition when you don't have to is fair play, but it's the arrogance and arc-of-history triumphalism(remember, this was the era of the emerging democratic majority) which wasn't confined to either rhetoric or a hardline negotiating tactic which poisoned his relationship with republicans(and the GOP leadership had been there for decades at that point, many of these were literally the same people who maintained a working relationship with Clinton which was, if not entirely cordial, at least not poisonous).

And it wasn't just congressmen; the Obama administration did lots of things aimed at either the republican base of support or republicans themselves(which yes, the Clinton administration did some of these too), but it was the attitude towards republican opposition to these things which was meaningfully different. I can see the Clinton admin suing nuns to try to deny conscience exemptions, but I can't see them declaring it a "war on women" to object to it. To say nothing of the IRS targeting conservatives, "if I had a son he would have looked a lot like Trayvon", etc, etc. Go hang around red tribers and they're still griping about fast and furious and life of Julia.

I think the Mitt Romney 2012 campaign has been gone over at length here, but I also think it's a minor factor. The red tribe polarization against the democrats has a fair amount of catastrophism and tradmoaning to it, but Obama and his administration's own actions are the bulk of the reasoning. Clinton at least was smart enough to not say things like 'clinging to their guns and religion', 'you didn't build that', or 'choose science over ethics', and a lot of normie red tribers took it as a series of mask off moments for the broader democratic party, which even today can't admit Obama made any mistakes except maybe not being progressive enough.

I think the Mitt Romney 2012 campaign has been gone over at length here, but I also think it's a minor factor.

I disagree with the latter claim, perhaps I'm biased but I feel like a lot of blue-tribers seriously underestimate the significance of Romney's and more specifically how he was treated by establishment Democrats and the media.

Romney was a popular Republican governor of an otherwise blue/democratic state, and prior to his nomination was pretty much the poster child for "compromise candidate". However, the moment he actually started to gain traction/look like he might actually win the GOP nomination the rhetoric shifted from "why wont the Republicans nominate a 'reasonable candidate' like Romney (in place of psychos like Bush or McCain)" to Romney hates women and wants to put the niggers back in chains, and I feel like that was a critical inflection point because it laid bare the lie that "compromise" was an available option.

I think it was a smaller factor compared to the IRS targeting scandal or fast and furious(for the secular conservatives) or little sisters of the poor(for the religious types). Not a non-factor, but not in a top ten list I’d make either.

Thanks for writing that out. The ACA part particularly is what I see most often.

I might be missing something, but isn't that his point?

Sorry, yes, I understand that. I'm saying I really have no idea what the other side to that story is.

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