site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   24831 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 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.

  • Lincoln: plot also targeted Andrew Johnson
  • Garfield: “Arthur, a Conkling ally, had been selected as Garfield's running mate to placate the Stalwart faction. As a self-professed Stalwart, Guiteau convinced himself that by removing Garfield, he was striking a blow to unite the two factions of the Republican Party.”
  • McKinley: anarchist with no statements on VP
  • Roosevelt: nutjob with no opinions on VP
  • JFK: sigh
  • Reagan: nutjob with no opinions on VP, or even President

So 1 out of 6. And Garfield’s assassin was dealing with an actively fragmented Republican Party with multiple credible candidates. I don’t know what Tim Scott’s deal is, but he looks to be a completely generic Southern Republican. What’s he supposed to bring to the table?

Garfield's assassin was also a nut.

Right, and it’s possible he would have stalked Garfield even if the VP wasn’t from his preferred party. But he specifically said "I am a Stalwart, and want Arthur for President." So he definitely counts for this question.

Garfield and McKinley being assassinated a century ago doesn't really say very much about the likelihood of it happening today.

My take is it's extremely unlikely, but not extraordinarily unlikely. If you wanted to make a "Doomsday Clock" for assessing assassination odds, it's probably closer to midnight than it was ten years ago.

I'd count JFK, and maybe Nixon too. I think he was likely setup.

I don't think assassinations are likely to happen anymore. I think CIA or something similar carried out JFK assassination and then realized how much of a massive headache it was to cover up and never did it again.

Seems like they usually go the lawfare or controversy route to get people out of the way. Trump has just been a bad target for these methods since he basically excels in those situations.

JFK was more of a unique situation, since Kennedy’s death was sort of just a means-to-an-end rather than anything else according to most serious researchers; Kennedy’s head being blown off was actually just meant (according to their theories) to act as a false flag against Cuba in order to invade the country and depose Castro, with LBJ hopefully biting the bait to support a full-on land invasion, with Kennedy dying just being an added bonus (given his sympathies towards Communist countries and his ‘betrayal’ against the anti-Castroites in not providing Air Support in the Bay of Pigs). Unless Trump’s death could be used as a means to some bigger benefit, I doubt the intelligence community or any other big organization might attempt to get the hit off, especially with the potential backlash of Trump’s successors.

…what? “Most serious researchers?”

That theory raises more questions than answers, anyway. Like how Cuba remains un-invaded.

…what? “Most serious researchers?”

Yes, like John Newman (former executive assistant to the director of the NSA & Professor at James Madison), Gaeton Fonzi (HSCA investigator & NYT contributor), Anthony Summers (Pulitzer finalist & BBC producer) among others. They all have done great work.

That theory raises more questions than answers, anyway. Like how Cuba remains un-invaded.

Not really. LBJ & Hoover upon realizing that Lee Harvey Oswald was impersonated during his visits to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City, along with Oswald or an impersonator meeting with the Soviet head of covert assassinations there, came to the conclusion that the Lone Gunman scenario (Oswald acting alone) was the only really tenable way forward. Earl Warren, the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, wasn’t willing to head the Warren Commission (which was working on the presupposition that Oswald acted alone) until LBJ pulled out ‘a little incident in Mexico City’ which would have implicated the Soviets and lead to ‘millions of Americans dead in an hour’, which caused Warren to actually cry on the phone with LBJ and reluctantly admit to head the commission. All of this is in the public domain and readily available.

your link doesn't work, which seems a shame.

I fixed it. Thanks.

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