site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   34399 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 31, 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.

24
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I really do not see what is wrong with their wording. Are you saying Politico made some specific diminishing statement that the NYT is trying to weasel their way around with their wording?

EDIT: wrong person. These are talking about Abrams the politician, not Lawrence-Bundy the lawyer.

Let's check:

with the largest amount going to the self-described boutique law firm of the candidate’s campaign chairwoman.

But some outside the group questioned both the level of expenditures devoted to a single, largely unsuccessful legal action and the fact that such a large payout went to the firm of Abrams’ close friend and campaign chair.

“Beyond $10 million would be very shocking, I would say.”

some ethics watchdogs say the closeness of their relationship, combined with Lawrence-Hardy’s leading roles in Abrams’ campaigns, raises questions about a possible conflict of interest.

“It is a very clear conflict of interest because with that kind of close link to the litigation and her friend that provides an opportunity where the friend gets particularly enriched from this litigation,”

Through her campaign, Abrams declined to be interviewed.

Abrams didn’t congratulate Kemp after his narrow victory. Instead, she complained that the electoral system was flawed.

...and I stopped halfway through. I'd say that all of those statements in the Politico article are diminishing her qualifications in some way or another, to varying degrees.

Conflicts of interest are a different issue from qualifications, I think.

EDIT: wrong person

I'd say that "ability to avoid conflicts of interest" is a qualification for political office, and she did not demonstrate that skill there.

Maybe we're talking past each other? The qualifications that may or may not have been diminished, I thought, referred to those of the lawyer Abrams hired, not of Abrams herself.

Oops, my mistake. I'm used to politicians coming from a legal background, and I didn't read the names closely enough.

No. I'm saying that it's entirely possible for Politico to have diminished Lawrence-Hardy's qualifications without criticizing her legal qualifications, and it's misleading to state as if them not criticizing her legal qualifications has any implication on the spokeswoman's claim that Politico diminished Lawrence-Hardy's qualifications. I'm ignorant of the specific statements Politico made, but presuming accuracy from NYTimes, my conclusion is that no one at Politico called out Lawrence-Hardy for not having the qualifications to be a lawyer. If I want to figure out if the spokeswoman's claim about Politico was true, then this NYTimes article doesn't help me other than pointing me in the direction of the primary source. Which would be all fine and good, if the NYTimes article didn't also strongly hint that the spokeswoman's claim about Politico were false while still avoiding explicitly saying 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