site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   21714 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I can see an argument for replacing the senile old man with, say, Newsom. I think it’s probably the wrong move electorally, but it makes sense in my head that it could work in the right circumstance.

But out of Trump, Biden, and Harris, Harris has the lowest approval rating. She was an electoral flop in the democrats primary, where you’d expect her to have higher support, and it generally seems like the more the public hears of her the less popular she is. Now the democrats can’t bypass the black woman VP, but if they had a face saving way to retire the entire ticket, pulling in Newsom or something would be a reasonable Hail Mary. They don’t, though.

Biden winning in 2024 and dying in office, leaving the incumbent Harris to run in 2028 actually sounds like a disaster for Democrats. Possibly the easiest election route for DeSantis.

‘Having Harris on the ticket’ is bad for democrats, full stop. Joe’s not much better, mind, but a best case scenario is to be able to retire them both. Pulling Joe now raises the obvious question of ‘why michelle or Newsom and not Kamala Harris’, and I don’t think the DNC can handle that question.

The DNC doesn’t need to handle that question, but it does need to keep the key black political machines in some southern states happy (and they ensured Biden’s victory, too). These Jim Clyburn type figures want not just a black VP but a route to a black president, and really a black woman president given how much organizing in the black church is done by women and how black voters are very disproportionately women.

I think if they could be persuaded that Kamala was a definite loser they could endorse someone else, but the question is who. It could be Abrams, I suppose.

Abrams is probably dearer to their heart than Kamala, but I also think that process would lay bare just how much of this is all about corrupt bargains with different interest groups. So no go- they're stuck with Kamala.

The SCOTUS thing already laid that bare, the putative VP for every future white male (and probably white female) Democratic presidential nominee is going to be a black woman.

Agreed, but at least in that scenario they have another term won in the pocket. Replacing Biden now and losing in 24 and possibly 28+++ is worse.

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