site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   Edited 3yr ago   36365 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 14, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apologies for the low effort but things are looking to get interesting because in the last 60 seconds Trump not only announced that he's running, he's announced that if he's elected going to seek specific laws against insider trading by members of congress, and ban on mail in and electronic voting. Direct quote "third world countries are better at democracy than we are and that is embarrassing"

Edit: "we will be attacked slandered and persecuted by one of the most dangerous and pervasive government apparati ever designed by man or women but we will win."

"We we will defend life liberty and the pursuit of happiness against the great enemy."

Edit 2: Speech has just concluded; Stand Up and Heroes are odd but appropriate choices for walk off music given the speech.

If were being honest I'm actually kind of nervous. On one hand this was a good speech that hit the right notes, it's what Trump needed to say if he wants to get elected. On the other this is the second time in 3 months (the other being Biden's Leni Riefenstahl moment) that a mainstream political candidate walked right up to the line of calling for the opposing party to be arrested and or shot and reading the reaction in red leaning spaces I gotta say that I'm feeling a lot like RDml Painter

I don't personally believe it, but the obvious case for it would be that he learned that things in DC are way more corrupt than what he thought the first time around. In that telling, he'll be putting together loyalist teams to replace the semi-permanent bureaucracy, removing them immediately on victory and installing his own people. Last time, he thought that merely winning an election would grant him the ability to issue orders in the executive branch, but this time he realizes that personnel is policy. He has articulated as much and WaPo has responded with a defense of Our Bureacracy Democracy.

Now, I don't think he has the ability to pull it off, but that's the story you'd have to tell to think he could.

He would be convincing if he had a list of appointments ready to go that he released- after all, he did that last time with judges, and now look, Roe is gone.

giving your opposition a list of people to harass and get fired for the next 2 years isn't smart strategy, especially when those who need to be "convinced" are likely those who aren't going to be convinced by such a list anyway

after all, he did that last time with judges, and now look, Roe is gone.

with none of the judges on that list being on the SCOTUS

SCOTUS is important but it's not the whole game. Circuit appointments matter just as much and that's one of the few places that pretty much everyone out side the most hardcore partisans would agree that he did solid work.

And you think naming 11 judicial appointments for SCOTUS, none of which were nominated to SCOTUS (or had anything to do with Roe being overturned) made some difference?

One, judicial appointments are different than admin team picks. Judicial appointments are made whether or not someone "supports" the admin nominating them. When it comes to admin positions, that's simply not true. Any person named on a list of people to be brought in to a new Trump admin will spend 2 years suffering and being harassed.

And to do what? No one who is swayable by such a list isn't going to vote/support Trump anyway. It's a cost with no real benefit.

Where are you getting the number 11 from?

Trump had 3 supreme court appointments, 54 federal circuit appointments, and 174 US district court appointments. And to answer your question yes I think it's important because the circuit and district courts de facto decide which cases go to the Supreme Court. Roe doesn't get overturned if Dobbs gets stopped at a lower court. Furthermore their judges form the pool of candidates from which future supreme court justices for both parties.

My only memory of a published list was when Trump published a list of 11 judges he would nominate to the SCOTUS (and then didn't).

Roe doesn't get overturned if Dobbs gets stopped at a lower court

Dobbs did get "stopped" at both lower courts in both Mississippi and the 5th Circuit.

But none of this is really my point. My points are 1) a list of admin staff has high costs and doesn't get much of a benefit; and 2) judicial nominee lists have lower costs and I don't think it had a benefit.

What does Trump get by publishing a list of people he's going to staff his admin with? People who are convincible by such a list to support Trump are going to anyway

More comments

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