site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31818 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The holdouts are objectively obstructing. Mostly their own “teammates,” so it’s a bit silly for Democrats to act wounded, but still. Matt Gaetz et al. are representing their constituents at the expense of the GOP—per their mandate.

Why should it be Democrats’ responsibility to pick up after the toddlers?

Not trying to single you out here, but I hate the word "obstructing" in politics. Its use is a motte-and-bailey. The motte is "blocking a thing from happening." As you say, the holdouts are "objectively" blocking the election of a speaker. But the bailey (which I'm not accusing you of using here) is "blocking my team from doing what we want without compromise," which was how the term was used through most of the Obama administration.

Why should it be Democrats’ responsibility to pick up after the toddlers?

I also really loathe the use of child-related words to describe politicians' actions. "Petulant," "childish," "toddlers," "tantrum," and of course the bizarre flash in the pan from a few years ago that was "pissbaby." Nobody in any of the three branches of government is a "toddler" (though I'll make allowances for Trump). This sort of language smuggles in the idea that the other team are the "adults" who are mature, responsible, serious, reliable, and more deserving of power. Assuming it's not being used cynically, it represents a failure to fully grok one's outgroup's motivations.

For example, Gaetz casting a vote for Trump isn't being a "toddler" or "having a tantrum," it's a middle finger to the establishment GOP. You might think it's an ineffectual or tasteless gesture, and it may well be, but there's a serious intent behind it. It's not the act of an irrational "toddler."

Democracy in Crisis just means progressives not getting what they want. But why would the Democrats want to stop this? It makes Republicans looks incompetent and signal boosts the embarrassing Gaetz wing of the party. Imagine The Squad pulling this against Pelosi in 2018. Republicans would just laugh.

Fyi, there was a serious movement demanding the "Squad" do just that in 2020 - i.e. block Pelosi until they were promised a floor vote on Medicare For All, or a 15-dollar federal minimum wage, or other progressive goals - but they fell in line with the caucus and didnt do it.

I'm guessing the Squad got something for their support. The defectors here know they'll get nothing regardless of promises, so they have no incentive to fall in line.

Didn’t they block build back build back better and decided who you want to blame Manchin or the gang the bill never got passed in original for or anything close to it.

Yes and the Republicans just sat by and watched them fight. The inability to select a speaker is a different level of dysfunction compared to the inability to pass $4T in new spending (while inflation was picking up steam) requiring 100% yes on a pure party line vote.

They're not toddlers, they're obeying their electoral mandates, as you just said. Why should Democratic Party lockstep solidarity be privileged over the business of government?

For the Democrats, this is more a moment to say "our opponents can't get their shit together". It's a showcase for the argument that the Republicans can't or don't want to govern and opportunity to throw Murc's Law in the faces of their critics.

Wordlessly and thanklessly picking up after toddlers is what adults do. If this is actually Extremely Dangerous To Our Democracy, then suck it up and throw a few votes to McCarthy to end the circus and move things along. Crying and caterwauling about how the situation is so bad, but you refuse to do anything about it is the behavior of a shitty 10 year old.

As has been the case over the past few years, I think it's important to hear "Our Democracy" as "OUR Democracy" to better understand how people not voting the way someone wants could be a danger to democracy.

Why should it be Democrats’ responsibility to pick up after the toddlers?

Because they're the ones complaining about the "obstruction". Every member of the House has the right to vote for whomever they wish. And if the Democrats think it's sooooo bad that the process can't move forward because of the split in votes, then it's on them - not the Republicans - to sacrifice the vote their conscience says they should make in order to get things to move along.

It's the responsibility of those who think it is a problem to offer and implement solutions.

This here. A few of the republicans voting McCarthy could also stop "obstructing" by voting present and letting Jeffries win, that way teaching a valuable lesson to the Republican holdouts.

Most republicans would prefer no congress to Jeffries and anyone going down that path would be primaried.

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