site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   33690 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.

...

Using "was trusted enough to handle nuclear codes!" as evidence that someone was some sort of deeply embedded apparatchnik is not the only thing that discredits your narrative, in my eyes, but it's a huge tell.

Top Secret security clearances are... actually not that uncommon. Many thousands of people have them. Many more thousands of people had one while they were in the military or federal service (they become inactive as soon as you leave). This includes basically anyone assigned to a nuclear vessel; not just the officers but the lower enlisted. Having a clearance is not some special badge of extraordinary fealty that proves you are absolutely loyal to the state; it means you've been thoroughly investigated and, so far as could be determined, have no criminal background, no drug habits, no shady financial dealings, and no suspicious foreign contacts. That's it.

Even "trusted enough to handle nuclear codes" is gilding it a bit, since you're trying to make it sound like he was so high up that he actually had button-pushing authority, when in fact, he was just an officer stationed on an aircraft carrier that was part of the US's Continuity of Operations Plan. He had authority to transfer codes in an emergency (he'd basically be the guy taking them off the wire and handing them to the captain), but wouldn't have actually had a whole lot of authority, since he was only a Lieutenant.

So, Woodward was a trusted Naval officer who reached a significant level of responsibility, but hardly the big deal you are making of it. In any other context this would lead most people to say "He was probably pretty patriotic (even if he did go on to become a journalist)" but since we're spinning fables about how Nixon was framed, now it's just evidence that he was some kind of anti-democratic agent of the Deep State?

None of this disproves your theory that Bob Woodward was some sort of operative doing a hit job on Nixon at the behest of his Deep State puppet masters, but "OMG he had a Top Secret security clearance!" is not any kind of evidence for it.

...

Trusted enough to handle comms for an admiral is something else from 'trusted enough to maintain aircraft and read top secret manuals'.

That's just a function of his rank. "Delivering messages to admirals" is about the job you'd expect to be assigned to a Lieutenant. You're saying "He was a mid-level officer doing mid-level officer things, with a security clearance. This is evidence that he was a minion of the Deep State even after leaving the military."

...

I get that you're playing Devil's Advocate, but you're not being very convincing tbh.

Devil's Advocate implies I am advocating a position I don't really believe for the sake of argument. This is false. I am stating things I know to be correct because while you apparently know no more about military service and security clearances than what you've skimmed off Wikipedia, I actually know what I am talking about.

I'm not trying to convince you, because you didn't actually arrive at your conclusion by evidentiary means. You are not the target audience.

...

You're still here, saying 'nothing to see here' in regards to a inexplicably hired rookie journalist with no relevant experience

Why is it inexplicable that a former Naval officer would go into journalism?

Mhmm. And how impartial may you then be? I'm starting to think you are under orders to be obtuse, because any other explanation is so uncharitable it'd probably break the rules were I to write it out.

I'm honestly fascinated to hear what your theory is. Either I am an operative moderating a tiny niche forum under orders from the Deep State, or.... what? Please tell me it's something more interesting than "Or you're just too stupid to grasp the truth of my arguments."

...

More comments

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