site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31075 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Maybe this is already answered by the proponents of this theory, but why didn't Nixon say anything?

Was there any media favorable to him ? "The press is the enemy, the professors are the enemy, the establishment is the enemy. Write that down on the blackboard 100 times and never forget it".

Heh, seems like he had a problem with the 'Octopus' before it was even defined!. That's Neema Parvini's extension of Yarvin's 'Cathedral' - an attempt at describing the managerial regime [1]that is more sovereign in western democracies than the elected representatives, and acts primarily through the combination of influence in bureaucracies & NGOs & corporations.

Because maybe then he'd not have gotten off lightly. He got pardoned, nothing really happend to him except his reputation was ruined.

Had he tried to play hardball, it could have caused a far bigger upset, which is not what you want when you're engaged in a cold war and have appearances to keep up.

Also. he might have ended up in prison had he refused to play ball.

Or just perhaps ended up being felled by a sudden heart attack from all that stress?

[1]: article by Malcolm Kyeuyne, aka 'Tinkzorg'. He's written some good essays, analysing situation through more or less sane-ish marxist lens but has recently been seen moving towards more respectability recently, by using his modest yet capable intellect writing hitpieces on the online right for Compactmag. Why exactly going after someone twitter anon with 140k followers who goes by 'Raw Egg Nationalist' is even necessary is .. unclear.

So Nixon agreed to not publicize evidence of a coup, agreed not to provide evidence of his innocence regarding his involvement with the Watergate break-in, agreed to resign in disgrace with a forever burnt reputation, etc etc because he assumed that the press would not believe anything he had to say. He further agreed to keep quiet for the next 20 years of his life and he did not confide his knowledge to anyone to publish after his death. Is this a fair summary of your position? If not, which part would you disagree with?

All that is preferable to years in prison or a sudden heart attack followed by a funeral, which were all options on the table, no ?

and he did not confide his knowledge to anyone to publish after his death.

I'm pretty sure he must have known nobody would have believed him anyway after the media was through with him. And didn't the truth essentially get out with the 1984 book by Hougan ?

because he assumed that the press would not believe anything he had to say

"Believe"? The theory is that they're part of the conspiracy.

Ok, is that the only disagreement you have with my summary? If so, do you believe "Nixon resigned in disgrace after trying and failing to cover up his link to a burglary at the DNC headquarters" is too implausible an explanation?

That's the neatest part of it; it's even the literal truth. Just not the whole of it.

That would have seemed outlandish to me too before the 2020 elections. Then I seem to recall it being the height of stupidity to talk about shit you know is happening and is subverting the democratic process but don't have evidence for. It was beyond stupid, it was poor gamesmanship and pathetic and made you look sad and stupid and like a tantrum throwing child.

Those are the options here. There was no path to the future for Nixon which didn't result in disgrace and forever being tied to corruption, the only choice was did he want to do it while making an enemy of real power, or come out relatively unharmed?

  1. "Nixon resigned in disgrace after trying and failing to cover up his link to a burglary at the DNC headquarters."

  2. "Nixon was the victim of a palace coup for [insert reasons]. He agreed to not publicize evidence of this coup, agreed not to provide evidence of his innocence regarding his involvement with the Watergate break-in, agreed to resign in disgrace with a forever burnt reputation, etc etc because he assumed that the press would not believe anything he had to say. He further agreed to keep quiet for the next 20 years of his life and he did not confide his knowledge to anyone to publish after his death."

Do you believe the second is the more plausible explanation of the two? If so, why?

Is my opinion not clear? You're so hyper focused on getting everyone to use the language you prefer that you are missing the answers they are giving. It actually feels like you are trying to put people in boxes so you can dismiss their opinion without attempting to understand it.

Is my opinion not clear?

No. I read your post I'm responding to multiple times and didn't really understand it (e.g. "it being the height of stupidity to talk about shit you know is happening and is subverting the democratic process"). Hence why I asked clarifying questions instead of just respond with "what?"

Ok, although I don't see how the question you asked clarifies the bit you don't understand. I do not believe the second is the more plausible of the two, I would be very surprised if anyone did since the first one has been the prevailing opinion of the zeitgeist for 30 years and is also the more parsimonious explanation. Nevertheless the second explanation is more plausible to me today than it used to be.

Ok I appreciate you responding. The purpose of my question was to figure out in which camp you were in because I genuinely couldn't tell from your post. With that out of the way, I still remain confused as to what the 2020 election had to do with anything.

I am in the 'never mind ideology, at all times suspect people who hide in the shadows and refuse to be held accountable' camp. But every year we lose the big race to the rich kids' camp up river.

Before the 2020 election, I thought "If a president came out and said something shocking but plausible, there'd be a lot of bitching, but it would be looked into thoroughly before any action was taken because he's the president and whatever you think of who is holding it, the office deserves respect." I thought - naively (I should have realised from Eisenhower's farewell address really) - that if anyone had a chance to combat the deep state/mic/cia it would be the president. Then we had the most secure election in history. Then I learned US elections have always been Whose Line Is It Anyway?, where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.

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