site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31664 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 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.

9
Top Bottom New Old Controversial
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A key difference between these situations is that there's no corroborating evidence for Cassidy's claim. It's not the case that the Presidential limo was seen suddenly swerving on camera, and Cassidy's claim is an explanation for what happened.

In the case of the Bidens, we have the email where Hunter is to hold 10% for "the big guy" and Bobulinski is explaining who the big guy is. We also, as far as I know, have no alternative theory on who "the big guy" is. Who else is in Hunter's orbit is a good candidate for "the big guy?"

A key difference between these situations is that there's no corroborating evidence for Cassidy's claim.

Another key difference is simply "likelihood."

How likely is it that someone in the backseat of a large car might lunge for the steering wheel? It seems unlikely to me that someone in the backseat of a Volkswagen Rabbit would be able to make any serious play for a steering wheel, let along someone in a more spacious luxury SUV or limo or whatever. Even before you get into the political alliances, this sounds like a made-up story.

Again, removing political alliances, how likely is that a powerful politician is profiting in some way off of the connections he makes for his family members? Moderate to very likely?

Whether there is evidence of either, of course, weakens or strengthens the case. But purely in a "Could I see this happening?" model, one seems physically difficult, at best, while the other seems like the way things usually work.

If I remember correctly, it was said Trump lunged for the wheel of The Beast, but he was on video being driven in an SUV that day, which would be a huge counterfactual.

To be fair Cassidy's claim was that someone (Tony Ornato) told her someone told him he saw someone do something. The only thing that is reliant on her credibility is the "someone told her" part of the chain. Ornato seems to have met with J6 committee and may be testifying soon, so he would be someone that can refute Cassidy's claims.

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