site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36939 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Doesn't much of that apply to Trump himself? Trump was, as far as I've understood it, way more liberal on "values questions" before he made the decision that GOP would be his route to power.

Agree but Trumps personality traits are hard work, perseverance, and promoting Trump himself.

People will make fun of Trump for being a rich kid silver spoon but he has created a lot of businesses that mostly promotes Trump. An alliance with the right was easier to make for both sides as the right didn’t have someone with no limits on how far he would go to fight for his adopted people.

It could. Though I would argue that Trump had less intellectual writing behind his flip flops, and his whole Jungian embodiment of Loki vibe makes it less important.

Trump had certain non republican views, and he had some religious conversion stuff. He moved the Rs in his direction on most things, and the rest can be explained as finding faith. Believe in it or not, it's a better explanation than Oz offers, which is no explanation at all. Oz never talks about his faith, because it's either Islam or a cult.

Oz' campaign is based on being a doctor, he literally put trans kids on his supposedly informative TV show and asked the CDC to investigate gun violence as a health issue in national newspaper columns. Trump yakked it up with Democrats for clout, Oz offered them policy cover for their totalitarian aims.

I've written an effortpost on the topic of Oz and Mastriano as representing more pure divergent strains of Trumpism. Here But it's vital to understand that Oz is at best a strain, and to note his other weaknesses as a candidate.

I've written an effortpost on the topic of Oz and Mastriano as representing more pure divergent strains of Trumpism. Here But it's vital to understand that Oz is at best a strain, and to note his other weaknesses as a candidate.

It's a little weird to me how you go in so hard on calling Swedenborgians a cult and part of Oz's inauthenticity when, in actuality, they're an ancient sect (admittedly kind of weirdo, but no moreso than modern sects like the Charismatics) with deep roots in the Mid-Atlantic region that date back to the Revolution. His affiliations with them is probably one of the most Pennsylvania parts of him.

It's something I grew up hearing, everybody knows around here. Asplundh, Swedenborgian, Bryn Athyn, cult. This is local knowledge here, well known, that outsiders might not have. I feel the same way about it that people thought about Romney being a Mormon.

I'm mostly being jocular about it, but it is notable that he's said less about his faith than the average Republican, when he could be talking about his faith, and it would be helpful to him to do so. We should ask why.

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