site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32123 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 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.

Trump is back on Facebook, Instagram too

Meta to restore Trump's Facebook, Instagram accounts

So this means he's back on all major platforms. I think this shows that maybe, alluding to the below about JK Rowling, that cancel culture does not work as well as on famous, rich targets: they get more chances, and also because they are such big draws and have so many fans, that it's shooting oneself in the foot to cancel them. I have observed the same on YouTube, with Rogan ,Jordan Peterson , and Fox News views being heavily promoted. I tested this by opening YouTube on an EC2 instance US IP, no browsing history. Big tech companies, like all companies, are motivated by profits in the end, more so than ideology. The big question is, will trump post? I think so eventually, come election season . At this point, I think the left has sustained a major defeat in the culture wars.

I prefer to view Trump's reinstatement as evidence that he's a spent force and no longer a threat. The cathedral wouldn't be letting him back on respectable platforms if he still had serious disruption potential.

The entire point of the cathedral is that academia, govt, media, etc aren't explicitly maliciously coordinating, but are made up of people who mostly genuinely try to advance progressive causes, gain personal influence or have 'impact, etc. If the cathedral decides something, that means it's the headline of a few NYT articles, several think tanks have published reports on it, it's buzzing on twitter, etc. And that isn't true of "trump is no longer a threat, so we'll unban him".

This claim could mean multiple things. One: a specific, hidden, powerful person believes "Trump is no longer a threat to <my hidden network>, therefore we should reinstate him so he can take attention from potential threats. Therefore I'm directing <hidden contact A> to talk to <person B in twitter/facebook/etc> to unsuspend trump".

Two: A consensus develops among various media people and progressive activists that trump isn't that much of a threat anymore. Some progressive ideologues inside twitter/facebook/etc get that idea, and then unsuspend trump because they believe he will soak up attention from other threats to progressivism.

Three: A consensus develops among ... that trump isn't a threat anymore. This diffuses to progressives at twitter. As a result, they put less continuous pressure on trump saying suspended, and he gets unsuspended. This differs via the lack of explicit planning or desire to use him as sort of a neutered opposition.

Four: There isn't really a consensus that trump isn't a threat anymore, but the cathedral is paying less attention to the trump threat, they're more worrying about desantis, SCOTUs, cops, whatever. As a result, less pressure, internal and external, are on twittter/facebook to keep trump suspended, so more 'centrist' heads prevail inside twitbook and trump gets unsuspended.

Claim 1 doesn't seem likely. There aren't any signs of it in e.g. the twitter files (where twitter consistently resisted external influence), it's not consistent with other secondhand reports from the internals of social media moderation, and it's not really consistent with how random and ineffective social media political moderation is.

Claim 2 doesn't seem likely (3 as well), because there isn't consensus among the cathedral that trump doesn't have disruption potential! Again, the cathedral is 'the media, academia, govt, and people around them". Many of them are still very worried about trump. Less worried than four years ago? Arguable, but that isn't 'doesn't think he has disruptive potential'.

Claim 3 and 4 are, crucially, not based on a deep evaluation that, with certainty, "he does not have serious disruption potential", but a sense that he's somewhat less of a threat.

Seems self-evident he still has disruption potential.

Indeed, perhaps the best explanation is they WANT his disruptive force in play, specifically because it will be most disruptive for the GOP primaries.

And if he presents an inkling of a new threat to the regime, he can be clamped down again.

Yes, that would mean they're risking a Trump redux.

Will the cathedral allow Desantis to have a major social media presence? So far he and his proxies have had a free hand.

This looks like it’s a response to enforcement actions taken with respect to the Texas social media law(which, considering it’s being enforced by Ken Paxton, is probably a wise move).

Will the cathedral allow Desantis to have a major social media presence? So far he and his proxies have had a free hand.

Unlike Trump he currently holds serious political clout in his own party and in his quite populous state.

So there's actually a risk of some form of retaliation (see what he did to Disney) if they attempt to deplatform him without strong justification.

Yes, and there’s a strong argument to be made that Facebook returned trump at the behest of Ken Paxton, who has almost as much clout in a more populous state.

Indeed, perhaps the best explanation is they WANT his disruptive force in play, specifically because it will be most disruptive for the GOP primaries.

Agreed. The left and right have each (finally) come to the conclusion that DeSantis is more powerful, and playing spoiler in GOP primaries is now a well entrenched strategy for the Democratic party for several cycles running.

As someone who will be voting red, I can’t stand that Trump is back. I think DeSantis has a much higher chance of (1) winning the WH and (2) doing something positive when there.

These are both correct in my view.

However, if Desantis is going to be effective as an executive on the Federal level, finding a way to sideline Trump (or, in a true triumph, secure his endorsement) prior to the primaries is going to be a relatively small challenge.

I am certain they have a plan to handle Trump, if nothing else.

However, if Desantis is going to be effective as an executive on the Federal level, finding a way to sideline Trump (or, in a true triumph, secure his endorsement) prior to the primaries is going to be a relatively small challenge.

It will be fun to watch the ladies on The View immediately transition to "why can't the GOP nominate a moderate like Trump instead of foaming-mouth radical like DeSantis" should this happen.

I don't think they'll say that. I think they'll talk about "Trump era radicalization continues." with the usual shibboleths about our democracy and all that. If they praise any GOP leaders in comparison, it'll be Romney and Cheney.

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