site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   15626 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lots of smoke no concrete proof, sorry but that's not the biggest scandal in US history by a long shot.

You literally don't know that the FBI knew it was "real", you are just assuming and assigning malice.

  • -12

Is there any reason to think the FBI had reasonable doubts?

IMO yes, state actors really do try to fuck with our elections by spamming shit on social media, and until vetted and combed for irregularities i would be suspicious of a laptop with a bunch of questionable stuff just miraculously showing up in opposition hands. Like i said, hindsight makes the situation look worse than it was at the time- this thread is assuming that the FBI knew the provenance of the laptop from day 1, and thats a big assumption.

So, not a single shred of specific information to suggest that the laptop was anything other than what it appeared to be?

The laptop can be what it appeared to be and still also be a tool used by russians etc. and it seems like the FBI may have thought there was something going on. I'll happily admit that i don't have a lot of the info necessary to draw a solid conclusion, unlike the people who really want to make hay out of an embarrassing laptop

it seems like the FBI may have thought there was something going on.

Did they? So far as I am aware, they had literally no reason to privilege that hypothesis beyond it being convenient for political narratives.

How convenient for them. The FBI should be beyond reproach for this sort of thing. This is hairline off literal treason and the hairline is on the proof not even the action.

You are being a dishonest actor.

The smoke reference was to Joe being in on Hunter’s dealing (that is, we have multiple messages from Hunter confirming that and personal testimony by Tony B. so there is actual proof — when I say not concrete I mean it isn’t being a shadow of the doubt).

The smoke reference was not directed towards the FBI. I think we have enough evidence now to say yes the FBI and IC actively helped a major political campaign.

Why is malice out of the question? Why is that so totally out of bounds given the pattern of behavior from the FBI over the last half-decade?

I understand the principle behind steelmanning and charitable interpretations, and wish to preserve them to the extent I can. But at a certain point it feels like like they're being abused and I'm being told to bury my head in the sand.

Malice isn't out of the question, but it also isn't as certain and proven as the thread here is assuming

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