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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What in the fresh hell, Pennsylvania?
Has the Motte discussed John Fetterman? If so, I missed it... I admit there are enough races I'm watching across the country that it is hard to keep track of them all. But in case you, too, have missed it, John Fetterman is the Democratic candidate for the seat of outgoing Senator Pat Toomey, one of 7 Republican senators who voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment circus. Seven days before winning the Primary, John Fetterman had a stroke.
I am not a medical doctor. For all I know, Fetterman will make a full recovery, eventually. But as of right now, the guy is one step above monosyllabic. Which made tonight's debate absolutely excruciating to watch. Over the course of the night, PredictIt shifted ten cents in favor of Fetterman's opponent,
the Wizard ofMehmet Oz. And yet most media accounts of the debate are steadfastly reporting only the substance, such as it was. No surprise--the media has been carrying water for Fetterman for weeks. But like... really? You can't report a single sentence saying, "Fetterman was clearly not up to the task." Watching people hit Twitter to unironically praise him for "doing really well, for a stroke victim!" is shocking. The level of partisanship required to vote for Fetterman at this point simply boggles the mind. On the flip side, #Festerman was briefly trending on Twitter before (I presume) someone elbowed their censors.Of course, we can trust our outspoken President to just tell it like it is. Perhaps President Biden understands better than anyone, given the possibility that he, too, might simply be functioning as a sock puppet for the Democratic establishment. The counterargument that criticizing Fetterman's cognition is some kind of "ableism" is just hollow. This is not a man who can do the job of Senator, at least not right now, and to pretend otherwise just seems exploitative to me. (And calling that a "bad faith" argument seems willfully ignorant. The man can barely speak, that's much more than an "auditory processing" problem.)
Of course, voting has been open for a month in Pennsylvania, and the state has already declared its intention to turn a blind eye to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling as it counts undated ballots. So in addition to potentially electing someone with the mental faculties of a young child to high federal office, Pennsylvania is also setting up a judicial crisis for its election process.
And all because Oz is, well, a Trumpist. If this is what midterms look like, 2024 is going to be... just something else. I can't even imagine. It's simply too much.
This implies either: 1) a stroke that results in inability to speak necessarily also affects the ability to think analytically; or 2) the ability to speak is critical to the job of Senator. Neither of those things is true.
Re: #1, it would certainly be news to Steven Hawking that speech problems = inability to think, and it is pretty common knowledge that different areas of the brain control different processes. Moreover, suppose Fetterman's stroke had left him completely mute. Would that prove that he would be cognitively unable to perform the duties of Senator? I don't see how, and in fact I rather doubt that anyone would make that claim. Thus, the mere fact that Fetterman has language problems is hardly the ironclad proof that he is unqualified that you think it is.
Re: #2, Senators spend most of their time doing everything other than speaking. And, perhaps more important is that the number one job of a Senator is to represent his constituents. Hence, if Candidate X supports policies that I disagree with, and Candidate Y supports policies that I agree with but has suffered a stroke, it is nonsensical to argue that Candidate X will do a better job as Senator than Candidate Y - from my perspective, he will do a worse job.
No, I didn't put those two sentences together, and neither should you.
Yes, speaking is an important part of a Senator's job; I additionally regard comprehension as an important part of a Senator's job, and the debate shows Fetterman sorely lacking in that department even with transcripting aids. But I would more vehemently disagree with this:
I regard political leadership as subtantially more important than political representation. The Framers of the Constitution clearly agreed with me, at least in connection with the Senate; the House is where "representation" was supposed to take place (hence, "House of Representatives") while the Senate was supposed to be a more aristocratic institution. Essentially, I regard the 17th Amendment as a horrible mistake.
It strikes me as odd to suggest that stroke addled Fetterman is insufficiently able to provide political leadership when the alternative is... Dr. Oz.
Can we do without the dog and pony show? Oz votes the way you like. Fetterman votes the way I like. The stroke is irrelevant to both of us.
I'm sorry you feel this way--indeed, I think it is corrosive to society that you feel this way--but I certainly do not feel this way. I'm also the kind of person who tends to vote for third party candidates, so you've furthermore misread me even to that extent (and I don't think there is anything in my post to suggest that I endorse Oz!). If you're going to insist that others are dealing in bad faith simply because you yourself are an unprincipled partisan, that's a you problem.
I don't think viewing senators as no more than button pushers makes someone unprincipled. It just means that "my senator should be a leader" isn't one of my principles.
I don't think most people think senators need to be leaders, and would cite the nomination of a weight loss snake oil salesman as evidence.
If you truly expect more from US senators, I apologise for my suggestion otherwise, and you have my sympathies for what must be a life of constant disappointment.
I appreciate that. Because yes--my disappointment is immeasurable.
Look on the bright side. At some point we'll be dead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link