site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   25769 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 26, 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.

Interesting that Scott campaigned against Trump in 2016 on the supposed nonpartisan basis (Trump is uniquely bad, it's better to the right if he loses too), but didn't endorse DeSantis or Haley in the republican primary on the same basis.

When has he endorsed anyone in the primaries? The Trump/Hillary option came really late in the game.

I think Scott could see neither of them realistically had a chance. I've always thought this was the wrong time for DeSantis to go, and the way his campaign crumbled demonstrated that. Even if he had been picked, all the rhetoric would just have shifted to him being Literally Hitler - think of the DeathSantis moniker. That seems to have started with his handling of the Covid response, then shifted to "he won't repeal the death penalty" and then used for whatever was grinding that particular person's gears. I like the bit here about the Christian Catholic (as distinct from us non-Christian Catholics, I suppose?)

Ron Death Santis, a supposed Christian Catholic, is now pushing what the New York Times on April 10 dubbed the “Toughest Immigration Crackdown in the Nation.” He has moved beyond “banning the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade” and banning books that tell Black history through his “S.T.O.P Woke” act, and has gone back to manipulating the state to “crucify” undocumented immigrants and those who help them.

So, DeathSantis because he's opposed to queer trans Black illegal immigrants, or whatever?

As for Haley, well she's not really got the name recognition yet. She needs to build her base and maybe 2028 will be her better chance, but if all she's got then is "two terms as governor of South Carolina and I couldn't even win the primary against the Orange Beast", then I don't prognosticate hopeful outcomes.

DeSantis was the leading candidate before Trump got indicted.

Not sure that DeathSantis would catch on. The combination of two different fricatives adjacent to one another, combined with how people pronounce death for longer than de might make it feel a little awkward to say and clumsy? But Trump was using the only marginally better DeSanctimonious, so what do I know.

Scott might be excused for not opining any more on party politics in the basis of the reception (and misunderstandings) of that article, though. I don't get the vibe from Astralcodexten Scott that he might.

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