site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44988 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think this is misreading the use of "defeat of democracy" in the Trump context. The progressive mainstream has been nursing a narrative somewhat along the lines of "If he can get away with it, Trump will abolish voting and proclaim himself emperor"; if you believe that, you don't need to require any esoteric beliefs on the true meaning of democracy to consider him becoming president a defeat for it, as the standard definition of democracy seems to assign some implicit weight to future generations that makes "overwhelming majority (of those who can vote now) elects eternal dictatorship" not count as a democratic choice. Conversely, dictatorially imposing democratic election processes in the future (by installing the unpopular leader that is seen as for maintaining them) would count as a "victory for democracy" even if it is not itself a democratic process, in the same way in which driving Germany's democratically elected leader to suicide in 1945 seems to be widely accepted as a victory for democracy.

Moreover, progressives believe that this belief of theirs must be obviously true to proponents of Trump as well, i.e. that they would be explicitly voting for the abolition of democracy. Considering noises about turnout rates in various elections across the world, I dare say even a 15% turnout or 85% spoiled ballots would also be labelled a "defeat of democracy".

I agree that that seems to be the mental model of the most anti-Trump blue family and friends I have. To them, the enabling act was a few months away from 2016 through 2020, and then in January 2021 their fears were seemingly confirmed by Trump refusing to concede. It's a bad situation, because if Trump and/or DeSantis are elected in 2024, it will be with a democratic mandate to go to war with institutions like the FBI, IRS, ATF, CDC, etc and attack woke capital, especially big tech. In the mind of Republicans, this will be seen as restoring democracy from unelected officials and breaking up trusts. To the Trump-fearing, it will look like a dictatorial purge. The institutions being attacked by Trump/DeSantis will obviously play this up in the media for their own self-interest.

The progressive mainstream has been nursing a narrative somewhat along the lines of "If he can get away with it, Trump will abolish voting and proclaim himself emperor"

People being able to modify their perception of the world so drastically away from the truth, that they perceive Trump as being likely to abolish voting, poses the same problem as utility monsters: giving into their preferences and interpreterting them charitably starts an arms race spiral of everyone trying to radicalize themselves.

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