site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   32104 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nate Silver wants to share what he wrote in his journal with you - LINK -

He's couching it as a "Reader Q&A" but it's a self-reflective series on him, his substack, the election, polls, and politics in general. If you're already fed up with Mr. Silver, it could be an exasperating read. I am not, however, and do find Nate's straight political takes (without any of the bulllshit "data journalism" or woo-woo risk and gambling stuff) to be better than the average pundit.

Just before the paywall, Silver concludes with a paragraph that reveals the rot at the core of the PMC-liberal elite;

For me, “Trump’s even worse!” worked one last time and I voted for Harris — largely because of January 6 and because Trump, like Biden, is too old. But maybe some of my gut feeling that Trump would win was because I sympathized with voters’ instincts to punish the Democratic Party more than I did in 2016 and 2020. Being willing to take a short-term hit to discourage coercion or punish broken promises is probably a pretty good default, an attitude that’s close enough to rational more often than not.

Dishonesty has a price. The Liberal/Left coalition has been held together by ducktape, glue, and the continued adherence to the idea of a "better tomorrow" as guided by the experts. But they're all inveterate liars and the American people finally called them out on it. Is it a full moon, Nate's turning into a self-awarewolf.

Silvers main point is if voters punish “their” party (by not voting, or voting third party), even if it means the enemy gets into power. He thinks yes, because that is how he felt:

Turning back to national politics, there are two times when I’ve felt betrayed by the Indigo Blob, my term for the unofficial alliance between the Democratic Party and the progressive expert class. If you’ve been reading me for a while, you can probably identify them because they’re the two huge fights I’ve had with the left in the past several years. One was with COVID stuff. When the pandemic began, I was one of those people who was like “Welp, we ought to just trust the experts here!”. Many of those experts did a great job under impossible circumstances. But I felt betrayed by a minority who were clearly using the pandemic to advance their political agendas: their utter hypocrisy in endorsing the George Floyd protests after having spent weeks telling everyone to stay home, for instance.4 And then they did profound harm with prolonged school closures.

Then there was Biden’s decision to run again. I thought this actually did present an existential risk because of an 86-year-old president’s questionable decision-making abilities in a crisis. At some point, it even became farcical, with Biden referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “President Putin” in a press conference meant to reassure the nation about his cognitive fitness. You’d get yelled at by a certain type of Democrat if you didn’t play along and pretend that this was normal.

After the June debate, I was willing to put my foot down; I would have voted third-party5 if Biden had remained on the ballot. Maybe this was intended to “teach the Democratic Party a lesson.” Or maybe it was an emotional reaction more analogous to revenge. But either way, being coerced into voting for a man who clearly wasn’t fit for another four years: sorry, that’s where I was going to tap out.

Other voters may feel betrayed by the Democratic Party for other reasons, particularly too much wokeness, too much immigration, and too much spending. In 2019, Harris ran far to her left. Although many pundits claim that Harris pivoted to the center this year, she was making mostly empty gestures. She backed down from many of her 2019 positions without providing any rationale or proposing much in the way of substantive policies to replace them, or doing anything to offend the various “groups” and nonprofits that dominate the Democratic Party’s policy-making infrastructure. And faced with a decision that did have real consequences — her choice of a running mate — Harris went with what the progressive wing wanted instead of the moderates.

Isn’t Trump also hypocritical and prone toward promising lots of things he can’t deliver? Sure, but his promises are also more tangible: less immigration, less crime, less inflation and most importantly, owning the libs and thumbing his finger in the nose of the establishment through the mere fact of his election.

Then there was Biden’s decision to run again.

I really don't like how commentators act like this was a choice when there was no political reality where he could conceivably not run for reelection. The only way this could conceivably make sense is if there was some obvious candidate who wouldn't draw any opposition and who would be running as a continuation of the present administration. In other words, they would have had to name Kamala Harris as heir apparent and hope nobody credible wanted to challenge her. They weren't going to get that. The administration's shortcomings were manifest enough and Kamala's popularity weak enough that at least one squeaky wheel would emerge who would seriously threaten to derail the whole thing. At that point you're just guaranteeing a repeat of 2016 or any incumbent who faced a serious primary challenge.

On the other hand, you could (probably) keep Harris out and have an open primary with the usual large cast of candidates. But when do you start this process? Most candidates announce in the spring or early summer of the year prior to the election, and the first primary debates are held in the late summer or early fall. But the candidates need time to form exploratory committees and the like and get their campaigns together before they announce, so add an additional month or two of lead time. It's worth noting that Trump's nomination was not a fait accompli at this point, so there was a reasonable concern that the GOP candidate would have an advantage in the general if given more lead time. The latest Biden could have realistically waited to announce that he wasn't running would have been May or June of 2023, but more realistically it would have been made in March or April.

At this point, his presidency effectively ends. any new legislative proposals or foreign policy initiatives are now political hot potatoes that are discussed more in terms of their effect on the primary election than on their own terms. Support from his own party is no longer guaranteed, so better just to ditch anything the least bit controversial. This isn't good for the party, either, since changing candidates doesn't exactly guarantee a Democratic victory. This is put more starkly when you consider that the second half of Biden's presidency went much better than the first. Inflation cooled, the border crisis subsided somewhat, and COVID and Afghanistan were increasingly in the rear view mirror. Any attempts for the party to win back voters or simply do what they feel is right go up in smoke; they've effectively conceded to half a term. And to compound the error, Biden's tenure as president is frozen at that point, and it becomes the record that Democrats are running on, including those who would be willing to question Biden's decision making.

A Biden candidacy wasn't ideal, but he had already beaten Trump once and there weren't any candidates who could step in and make an obvious improvement. If Biden has a normal, boring performance at the first debate then he doesn't drop out and, who knows, maybe he wins. Conversely, if Biden doesn't run and Trump wins anyway then the pundits are writing articles about how the Democrats sacrificed 2 years of power in order to expose intraparty divisions and nominate a candidate who was stuck with Biden's record anyway and had no real chance of winning. So pick your poison.

This logic is why democrats lost. Having a mentally competent commander in chief is more important than ensuring everyone sticks to party talking points. Having an open primary is not some optional feature you only do when it's convenient to rev up enthusiasm. Perhaps the party wouldn't have needed to win back so many voters if they didn't betray the nation's trust.

I believe the Democrats also lost because they didn't have a competitive primary in 2020. Or 2016. Actually, the last time the Democratic party had an actual competitive primary where they truly let the party membership decide who they should nominate, the people went against the Clinton machine and picked Obama, who won in a landslide and then won again, despite intense oppositon.

And when the Republicans last had an open primary, they picked Trump, who won in 2016 in a surprise victory and then won the popular vote in 2024.

Open primaries win elections. Machine politics loses them. 2020 was the singular exception, and it was all due to COVID, an unprecedented social disruption.

How was 2020 not an open primary? There were like 700 candidates.

Obama forced a lot of people out of the race through back room dealing.

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