site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29336 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sometimes simple comments say broad things for trends. In a group chat for a mixed group someone posted the Biden energy guy who likes stealing bags. I said if the Dems ran on their current platform in 2008 they would get 10% of the vote. I got a reply “truth”.

I can go back in time and pull up Joe Biden being very anti-gay marriage. Would it be fair to say if Joe Biden went in a coma in 2008 and woke up in 2022 he would be one of the most ardent Maga extremists? And a bunch of Republicans just voted for gay marriage.

The question I’m asking is it fair to say the left made a giant leap in roughly 15 years and the extremists today are just normal people not that long ago. I know this is meme. But is this factual?

It is easy enough to look at Biden's campaign site from 2008 and find out. The answer clearly seems to be "no."

It is also easy to look at the 2008 Democratic Platform, which calls for ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell; refers to climate change as a "national security crisis", calls for the "end the tyranny of oil", and says "our response will determine the very future of life on this earth; condemns "inequalities in our criminal justice system"; promises to "restore vigorous federal enforcement of civil rights laws"; calls for "banning racial, ethnic, and religious profiling"; and opposes voter ID laws.

Edit: Biden could not have been "very anti-gay marriage" in 2008, given that he rather famously came out in support of it only 4 years later, much to the annoyance of the Obama Administration.

The actual reality is almost every Democrat from a purple or blue state was personally in favor of gay marriage by 2008, but they just needed to let the populace get a little more behind it before announcing it officially. Just like basically every Catholic Democratic politician was privately pro-choice, but may have pretended to be pro-life for a while until the last JFK-voting Catholic Democrat's went off into the great beyond or became Republican's.

Yes, but the "very" that I was objecting to. Moreover, the position you cite re states defining marriage is not really "against" same sex marriage at all. Compare it to the 2016/2020 Republican platforms -- they were identical -- which say:

Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman.

As for whether Biden truly evolved or was blowing in the wind, the video of the interview in 2012 certainly makes it seem as if he is sincere. I doubt that he is that good an actor. Whether he was sincere earlier, when he seemed more skeptical of SSM, I don't know.

States rights is the governmental equivalent of the libertarian impulse to secure free speech when out of power and mumble something about consequences when you're in power.

This goes all the way back to Slavery, when Southern states tried to impose pro-slavery policies at a federal level with eg the fugitive slave acts until the majority was firmly against them and they flipped and declared that states rights were the most important issue. New England free soil parties were the ones talking about states rights and even secession in response to Dredd Scott, they flipped to talking about the sacred Union when it was convenient for their cause.

In 2008 let the states decide meant oppose DOMA and allow blue states to legalize gay marriage. In 2020 let the states decide meant end Obergefell and allow red states to outlaw gay marriage. Once the court does, hopefully, overturn that abortion of a decision we'll see the positions flip.

The who, whom remains the same, the states rights issue flips sides. Happens every time like clockwork.

States rights is the governmental equivalent of the libertarian impulse to secure free speech when out of power and mumble something about consequences when you're in power.

No, it is the end-result of the impulse to allow decisions to be made at the lowest practicable level, in order to try and combat mob factionalism.

Much like free speech is the antecedent to all other freedoms... But those positions are held honestly by all two dozen of us principled libertarians, and semi honestly and inconstantly by a huge number of people who just use the argument as a soldier to benefit their tribe.

How else do you explain the gay marriage flip, which was largely made by literally the same Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, McConnell)? Republicans were happy to push a national ban on gay marriage until that became impractical, Democrats fought a national resolution on the issue until one in favor of their position became possible. That doesn't look like either actually existing political coalition having a real position on states rights.

That doesn't look like either actually existing political coalition having a real position on states rights.

Why would you expect anyone to? The whole point of the Madisonian checks-and-balances system is channeling inconstant, selfish, and transient political interests in ways that minimize the harm they can cause to the public good. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," and all that. In fact, the system breaks down most prominently when one or another entity within its design stops playing hardball and trying to grab as much power for itself as it can (i.e., the administrative state and imperial presidency only exist because Congress has been steadily neutering itself for the past 100 years, and we neutered the states through the Reconstruction Amendments and the direct election of senators).

It's a change in view, but it really is not nearly as big a change as portrayed in the OP. It would be easy to imagine awakened-from-coma Biden in 2022 adopting the current Dem view on gay marriage out of bat after hearing a few simple statements on how this is how the issue has progressed.

To be fair, it's also easy to imagine Biden dropping some bigoted comment or joke before being pulled aside and informed that those are no longer politically wise.

It's easy to imagine Biden doing that without having been in coma.

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