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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Disagree. Even from a right-wing perspective, he lies habitually. Republicans may be protectionist, but his trade policy constantly changes. He's weirdly deferential to Putin (whereas the median Republican might not want to get involved in Ukraine but still admits Putin is bad), and his Ukraine policy is incoherent whether you think we should be involved or not. There's pretty much everything relating to RFK. He's pardoning corporate fraudsters. People are completely silent on his own blatant lawfare.
Sorry I'm confused what point you are making here. Could you rephrase?
The more charitable interpretation is they consider their bad apples to fall under the lizardman constant, similar to the responses I'm seeing regarding the right. But let's say yes anyway, because that is my criticism of the left. That they do so is in fact what I think is why The Motte hates the left so much. So why would you do it yourself? Yes the constant refrain is "Why should I better than my opponents, when that will only result in losing?" My point rests in how exactly one keeps score. It's relatively fine to say, "I'm keeping track of the bad things both sides do, and I think side X is worse." It's another thing to say, "I'm going to keep counting the score of my opponents, and stop counting my own." At that point you've decided you want to keep your head in the sand and have become just a rage reactionary. Your opponents are fully justified then in playing dirty, because you're saying you can be as corrupt as you want and it doesn't matter.
...and let's not forget, winning the Republican primaries with 80% of the vote.... Whatever you think of him, most Republicans either aren't all that bothered by it, or think the Neocon wing is worse, therefore it is them that are the "crazy Republicans", not Trump.
The kids from Yong Republicans got fired for making edgy jokes. If the right existed to provide cover for "crazies" like that, their messages would never get leaked in the first place, but if they did you'd see a unified front of Republicans actually covering for them. What you see instead is a significant of infighting between the "muh principles" wing of the Republican party (represented for example by James Lindsay or Seth Dillon) and the "don't do cancel culture against our own people, ffs" (for example Matt Walsh). I don't think there was an example of a similar amount of infighting on the Democratic side over one of it's subgroup saying something offensive to conservatives.
Well, I think you're wrong about who is hated and why. I don't hate the people who say "who cares" about their crazies, I hate the crazies. The people who say "who cares" only start being annoying when they acting outraged over me saying "who cares" over my side's crazies, and thus demand that I hold myself up to a standard they never followed themselves.
To be honest I don't really want to keep score for either side. Historical memory is good when someone starts acting like whatever media-invented outrage is unprecedented, but my goal in punching back isn't equalizing of scores, it's deterrence. If I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to get sucker-punched again, because I taught a belligerent a lesson that I can hold my own, I don't need to leave him with the exact same amount of stitches he originally gave me. But we're nowhere near this point, I don't even see the other acknowledging they did anything wrong, let alone incapacitating their crazies so it doesn't happen again.
All I can tell you is these are the things that seemed to make the right upset when a Democrat was doing it. To the point that from this side it looks like them being mad when a Democrat did it was outrage bait.
Point of order: it's not my view that your average Dem/Rep voter is covering for crazies. It's something that in my view gets thrown at me by members of the right when I say I vote left because I think the right is worse. That said, the left is perfectly willing to cancel its own, just not generally at the behest of the right (and yes, the right do try to cancel people for non-"turnabout" reasons). Not entirely analogous I admit, but I remember Al Franken. And yes people on the left have in fact been fired over Kirk comments. Or here's an old issue I remember about a lefty making an edgy joke about Africa.
This ties into group culpability. I had a rather long back and forth with JarJarJedi not too long ago. One of the things I'm reminded of is Trump canceling the student visas of people who protested Israel, on the logic that members of said protest harassed people. Whether the person whose visa was cancelled was one of the people harassing was irrelevant. Where I'm going with this is that many of the arguments made require group culpability in order to make sense. Someone can say "I don't believe X" and then support a policy that relies on it, and at that point I would say they're in denial about it. Note that this is a generic comment, I don't remember everything you specifically have said.
That's not how politics work. By and large it's somebody punching in your general direction because they feel someone punched in their general direction. It can hotter or colder, but it will never stop and never admit wrongdoing. They don't care whether you think they did something wrong, they only care either if they think they did or, rarely, if a critical mass of the public thinks they did.
What do you want me to say, "first time?" I remember when the war in Iraq was the most important issue ever, right up until Obama got elected. Or the surveillance state. Or antisemitism. People do this stuff all the time, and the idea that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in that regard seems baseless. What's more, if we accept this argument it would mean that Biden and Obama are the Demicratic crazies.
I know. You were trying to show how, if we take the right-wing arguments seriously, it would mean that the broader right-wing is there to cover for it's crzies, the same way they accuse the left of doing so. My point is that this argument doesn't work, because there is no symmetry in the conduct of the two sides.
Not only is it not entirely analogous, most of these examples are missing a critical component, other than the cancellations over Kirk, these are examples of the left cancelling itself for things offensive to other parts ot the left, not the right. Even the Kirk example is missing the other component of left-wingers jeering at the left wingers that just got fired.
I'm sorry I'm not seeing how anything in this paragraph connects to whether or not people of the Motte hate left wingers for saying "who cares" about their crazies.
Deterrence works almost exactly like that in war, and war is part of politics. The mechanics might be a big different during timesnof peace, but I'm not seing any fundamental issues with it working there as well.
Isn't that literally what you asked me to do earlier?
Doesn't have to be the first time to be true. Nor does it have to be exclusive to one party. But I'm not just talking about parties in general, I am referring to The Motte community. I certainly remember all the talk about lawfare.
Hold up, there's a hidden assumption in this. First you said Republicans are not in solidarity because otherwise it wouldn't have been leaked. But then you pivot to saying the Young Republicans were fired because the left demanded they be fired. Why do I have to grant that the left was the determining factor in them being fired? You yourself pointed out that that there are some on the right that have standards, and I don't think the left really has influence over an explicitly right-wing group.
As for the Kirk example, your "critical component" was never mentioned before. I grow a little tired of the whole, "My example was on a Tuesday, yours was on a Wednesday so it doesn't count." Comparisons are never exact, deal with it. Also, I posted Kotaku because that was the link I had, but the people who would jeer at it would not be found on Kotaku.
Debatable. And there are people on the left that call out the left. The Harper Letter crowd for instance. Hell, Obama himself has called out progressives for some of their behavior.
I'm saying that "the left" is treated an amorphous blob. And yes, the right is too by the left, but they're not here right now. I'm saying that in order to say that "John Smith" should have his visa canceled because "protestors" have committed harassment is to say that the way for the left to not deserve this is to police their crazies. I'm using this as an example of how people might not think they are doing something when in fact they are.
War involves people dying or the threat of dying. Politics involves a pendulum of the people who temporarily lost coming back into power and often just undoing whatever the other person did as much as they are able. None of your deterrence is actually hurting people outside of making them angrier and more motivated to act again. Political arguments don't really have the power to really act as deterrence.
In which part? Because overall what I'd say I want is for people on the Motte to stop and think, "Would I accept this line of reasoning if my opponents used it against me? Or would I try to find some excuse to invalidate it?" Again I do this too, but I'd like to think I try.
I thought you specifically mentioned "the median Republican" in your argument, so I'm a bit confused why this is suddenly about the Motte community. Again, I'm pretty sure we're a much better example of crazy right-wingers than Trump is.
No, I said they got fired for saying things offensive to the left. Your examples would be akin to me saying "look how good the Republicans are in policing their own crazies, they fired this guy for being too permissive on abortion, and that guy for being in favor of no-fault divorce".
Well, this is from my original comment:
and this is after you asked for clarification:
Maybe it was communicated poorly, but "was never mentioned" seems like a bit too much.
I actually sympathize with your frustration about this, but I don't see an easy way out of this bind. Indeed, comparisons are never exact, and sometime bad-faith actors latch on to any difference to pretend an example or analogy does not apply. On the other hand, they also sometimes try to gloss over critical differences in order to pretend that two very different things are roughly the same. I don't know what to do about it other than to hash out which is which in a conversation.
That doesn't bother me, but I just haven't seen the jeering at all, let alone at the same volume. When Jimmy Kimmel got cancelled, the left rallied around him, and as far as I can tell kept mostly quiet about the people who said something egregious enough to get fired for good.
That still works more in my favor than it does yours, if we're debating whether or not it's bad to say "I don't care" to the excesses of your side. That thesis only works if it's reasonably certain that the sides are symmetrical, if it's merely debatable, then well... my mind is open, but you'll need a bit more to convince me to care.
Obama made a single (a few?) speech(es?) that went over about as well as led balloon, and as for the Harper Letter:
Oh wow, looks like the Neocons are not only the crazy-wing of the right, they're so far off they're actually left-wing according to you.
Look, there's other strains of evidence for the right policing itself more than the left that don't boil down to the observer's bias. The right has more diversity of thought within itself, as per actual studies and their endlessly memed graphs, so it will contain more loud disagreements.
That's an odd thing to say "I don't hate people who say 'I don't care' I hate the crazies". If you're referring to the original thesis of "the broader left exists to cover for it's crazies", that's not treating the left as an amorphous blob, that's pointing out that it's moderates refuse to do anything tangible against their crazies.
That can be true even in war. 9/11 didn't do much to directly hurt the USA, and for that matter neither did the American invasion of Afghanistan do much to hurt the Taliban. Now, I will agree that in times of peace, and within a nation the dynamics are somewhat different, but not completely so. There's a reason for why conservatives were looking for ways to get a Supreme Court majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, and didn't just pack to court the moment they had the chance.
I mean, right here, in the very sentence after your question? When I said "I don't even see the other acknowledging they did anything wrong" I didn't see "acknowledging they did anything wrong" to mean anything other than "they would not accept this line of reasoning if my opponents used it against them".
Mostly I was referring to the median Republican, but I guess I found it casually dismissive. I took as if you were saying "Oh some other people elsewhere flip-flop, big deal," and I think "Yeah but The Motte looks to me the exact same in that regard." But still I'd argue that, if nothing else, Trump's trade policy is crazy, and I have seen the right complain about it, they aside from grousing about it a bit don't seem to care.
You did say that. But you also said that the right is not unanimous and that some on the right found it offensive. I am suggesting that rather than, "The right canceled the Young Republicans at the left's behest," the more plausible scenario to me is "Some members of the right found it offensive, some didn't. Ultimately the members of the right who found it offensive won out. The left was also complaining, but they were immaterial to the decision." If we were talking about some guy being fired at Microsoft, sure I'd say the left canceled him. But we're talking about the Young Republicans. It sounds to me like they'd be pretty likely to tell the left to fuck off if the left tried to cancel someone there. And besides that, the Young Republicans weren't fired for policy positions, they were fired for praising Hitler (yes I know, not really).
Oh wow, the notably unbiased and always reliable wikipedia called them conservative. You know you can go to the page and look at the names, right? Here you go: Harper's Letter. Kmele Foster, John McWhorter, Yascha Mounk, Kat Rosenfield, J.K. Rowling, Jesse Singal, Chloe Valdary, Andrew Solomon, Bari Weiss, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Matthew Yglesias, Cathy Young, Fareed Zakaria. I know these names and they are not neocons.
There's been a bit of it, see here, but I'll be honest that I don't actually know where most of the center left congregates online, and they're the ones most apt to condemn it. If you want to say the left is worse on the subject of celebrating deaths, sure. Though the Paul Pelosi incident doesn't make me feel that the right is that much better.
I'm not trying to convince you that the left is better than the right, and I'm not trying. It's debatable because "badness" is subjective. But I don't think the goose and the gander need to be exactly symmetrical for the goose/gander principle to hold.
My point with Obama and this is the very idea of "policing" one's side is pointless. Plenty of the right have criticized Fuentes, but he still has a sizeable audience. Plenty have criticized Trump, and if anything they came out worse. It's the old, "So you called me a racist, now what?" You can't make them do anything or actually go away. Calling them out is kinda the most you can do, and if they ignore it not much you can do except maybe sabotage yourself by switching to a party whose policies you actively disagree with.
Side note that your links aren't useful. One seems to link to this comment chain and I wasn't sure if that was pointing to anything, and the other is a scatterplot with no context.
I'm more saying that politics is fought with weapons that are, long-term, useless. Anything you do can be undone. Even Roe v Wade could later be restored, albeit with difficulty.
This is correct. All claims that Trump represents some sort of breaking of norms are pure cope. He's no worse than all the other politicians.
How does that imply that Trump is "crazy"? People are going to have their disagreements even with the candidate they vote for.
Yeah, that's my argument, that's why I never said "at the left's behest" but "for things offensive to the left". Because the right has a higher diversity of views they end up having in-group disagreements, and thus policing their extreme elements in a way that makes the movement less offensive to their opponents. No such mechanism exists on the left, therefore the conduct of the two movements is not equivalent.
Doesn't that say something? If the "center left" exists, it should be mainstream, the places where they exist should be clear and obvious. If it's just a niche that no one knows where it congregates, the very concept of the "center left" becomes a bit dubious.
You can compare the reactions to the attack on Rand Paul with the reactions to the attack on Paul Pelosi, if you want. To compare either to the assasination of Charlie Kirk is a bit absurd.
Yeah I agree, I'm not really interested in litigating cents, or miligrams, or whatever we are measuring this by, but I hold that symmetry is a coherent concept, and that the two sides are straightforwardly not symmetrical right now.
Then consider me extremely confused. If calling them out is pointless, then why are you upset at all the "who cares" arguments, and demand that people not accept arguments that they'd find unacceptable if they came from the other side? What specifically do you want to see from MAGA? Is the thing that you want to see being provided by the center-left, and if not, why should MAGA be the first one to start?
Sorry the graph is what I wanted to upload, but the study must have gotten lost in the clipboard. It's here: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665
And in war territories can be regained, industries can be rebuilt, populations can recover, etc. I'm not seeing the difference here.
Potato, potato. It's still a framing that reduces it to the left, in much the same way as "Republicans pounce." Praising Hitler is something the right also opposes, so if someone (particularly their boss) does not take the view that it was "locker room talk" then it was just the right firing the right for offending the right (and the left was there, too).
Not necessarily. The right makes up a half of the voting public, but I have no idea where the right congregates online relative to their numbers. And I think that the left is more online in a general sense. This old but not that old study suggests that progressives are the minority of even the Democrats, but things that are loud are the things that are noticed.
They're both celebrations of violence, even if the level of violence differs.
Because you're conflating two different things. "Caring" and "policing" are similar but different. You can care about something but not be able to police it, because a notable aspect of police is they have the power to punish you. You can also police something without caring, for instance if you punish a subordinate for offending a crowd even though you had no problem with the behavior (which you seem to be implying about the Young Republicans). In the case of the Young Republicans, they are an organization with leadership, and the only "policing" that matters was what those bosses thought. When Obama tries to tell progressives to chill out a bit, he has no power to make them (because being an asshole is legal), so you dismiss that he made the gesture. When Trump does something crass, he polices the people who criticize him for it.
Kimmel is most comparable to the Young Republican situation, and you do have something of a point there, though I would argue it was complicated by A) the right suddenly being very pro-cancellation was culture war fodder and B) The Trump administration threatening ABC became politics fodder.
What I want to see, from all sides really, is self-reflection. The left demands the right apologize and think they have nothing to apologize for. The right demands the left apologize and think they have nothing to apologize for. You point out that the right has factions but so too does the left. I do think the latest election was the moderates being fed up with the far left, or at least the ineffectualness of Biden going after niche issues and ignoring bread and butter issues like the economy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link