site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   34949 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 28, 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.

Dear Motte, please help me place my vote.

I really want to support the Democratic Party. Biden's FTC, EPA, and NLRB all seem to be working in economic directions which will make my life and the life of my children better: open markets, cleaner air, better working conditions. I can't help but notice that Trump's previous court picks tend to work against my goals of regulating business, increasing vacation time for my family, and limiting the EPA's attempts to regulate fossil fuels.

But voting blue has some tradeoffs. Some of these I'm aware of, but they are less relevant to me: Immigration is high and crime is up, but immigration and crime are intensely local, and my locality is pretty safe, with lots of rich donors and its own competent police force.

I'm going to have a family soon. I would like my child to be able to enjoy a carefree childhood, without needles in the parks and bullies in the schools, and without the chance that they are brainwashed into values that won't give me grandchildren.

But then things happen which force me to reevaluate and acknowledge that I cannot support the Democratic party. For example, this exchange during the VP debate (Transcript from Matt Taibbi):

VANCE: You yourself have said there’s no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use…

WALZ: Or threatening. Or hate speech.

VANCE: …the power of the government to use Big Tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this political moment… Let’s persuade one another. Let’s argue about ideas and come together afterwards.

WALZ: You can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test!

Matt makes the argument that Walz got the crowded theater analogy backwards, but even more than that what rings alarm bells in my head is the phrase "Or hate speech."

What do you mean hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment? How do you think the market of ideas is going to work?

This exchange was the last straw for me, and convinced me that, however much it may harm my short-term personal interests, I cannot cast a ballot for Walz and the group of people who think like him. No matter how shitty life might get without the EPA or FTC working in my best interest, it will get much more shitty, much faster if donors to the Democratic party (NPR listeners?) get to define contrarian thought as "hate speech".

So here are my options for presidential tickets:

  • Donald J. Trump / JD Vance (Republican)
  • Randall Terry / Stephen Broden (Constitution)
  • Chase Russell Oliver / Mike ter Maat (Libertarian)
  • Jill Stein / Rudolph Ware (Wisconsin Green)
  • Claudia De la Cruz / Karina Garcia (Party for Socialism and Liberation)
  • Cornel West / Melina Abdullah (Justice For All)
  • Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. / Nicole Shanahan (We The People)

Any ideas who has the most "Grey Tribe" values and best policies?

Important issues to me, in order of importance as far as I can tell:

  • Freedom of expression
  • Transparency in government
  • Competence in government and making decisions without corruption
  • Quantitative approaches to existential threats (climate change, nuclear proliferation, AI engineered viruses, ASI, etc.)
  • Maintain international trade (i.e. maintain the empire)
  • Increase economic competition (anti-monopoly)
  • Labor rights (anti-monopoly)
  • Reduce everyday mortality: healthy lifestyle, healthy food, healthcare access, traffic safety, crime, etc.
  • Improve everyday quality of life: clean water, clean air, low prices, YIMBY
  • YIMBY and environmental law (abolish zoning but enforce strict laws against pollutants).
  • Immigration: let in those who follow the process, but stop allowing "refugees" and people who overstay visas (currently, overstaying a visa is the fastest path to a relative's green card.)

Edit: formatting of candidate list

The chance of anything meaningful happening relating to speech laws under a Democratic administration is zero. Even if they did control both chambers, which they won't, any national legislation on 'freedom of expression' would never get out of the starting blocks among swathes of Democratic congressmen and women. Walz made a silly comment, but it seems very paranoid to think this would ever actually amount to something. Certainly, if that is beyond the pale for you then you should be much more violently opposed to Trump, given his comments on freedom of expression have gone way beyond that. They're all well known now, but some of the worst below;

“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet, and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. And we have to talk to them. Maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way [audience member cheers]… Somebody will say, ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a LOT of foolish people.”

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected,

“it is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write.”

Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!

"It's truly incredible that shows like Saturday Night Live, not funny/no talent, can spend all of their time knocking the same person (me), over & over, without so much of a mention of 'the other side,'" the president wrote. "Like an advertisement without consequences. Same with Late Night Shows. Should Federal Election Commission and/or FCC look into this?"

Now, Trump obviously can't/couldn't follow up on any of these threats for various practical or legal reasons, but nevertheless if it's a contest of 'who has more contempt for freedom of expression' Trump wins hands down.

I strongly agree with this. OP lists freedom of expression as his top issue but the whole top post reads as an isolated demand for rigor from the left. You can't always buy the hype. Elon Musk makes a ton of noise about free speech too - but his actual track record running X is decidedly mixed on the issue of free expression. I'm a big fan of the 1st Amendment, it's important to me too. Which exactly why I've done enough background reading to know neither major American political party is particularly good on the issue of free speech!

https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1850700851104358438

The chance of anything meaningful happening relating to speech laws under a Democratic administration is zero. Even if they did control both chambers, which they won't, any national legislation on 'freedom of expression' would never get out of the starting blocks among swathes of Democratic congressmen and women.

This is strongly refuted by the facebook and twitter files wherein it is laid clear that intense backroom pressure was applied to suppress speech. Passing laws is hardly how the government works anymore. It is mostly about controlling the agencies, which it seems Trump is unable to do, particularly on this particular issue. The DOJ prosecuted him and his supporters more than Democrats when he was ostensibly in charge of it!

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