site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34482 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 6, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

2020 stolen election time! There's been some rather big developments with my favorite cute little hobby horse. I haven't had the time to make a deep-dive write-up, but it's has already been extensively reported on elsewhere (e.g. this post by Jacob Sullum). To summarize, Dominion voting systems sued Fox News (and Newsmax, and OAN) for defamation. Dominion has been past the discovery stage for more than a year now but their filings only recently became public and, no way to say this lightly, it's been extremely humiliating for Fox. Tons of text messages from the big names (Carlson, Hannity, etc.) either talking shit about how crazy Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani are, or (especially for Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo) credulously accepting and repeating the stolen election theories.

One especially funny example involved Sidney Powell credulously forwarding an email to Bartiromo from a complete rando claiming they had "Election Fraud Info". In that same email, the anonymous rando claimed that they got their information from their dreams, that the wind tells them they're a ghost, and that Justice Scalia was murdered during a human hunting expedition. As evidenced by the filings she submitted to court, Powell's skepticism faculties appear to be basically non-existent, and the fact that so many people took her seriously at first is a good illustration of the pitfalls of siloed reasoning.

Maybe the most damning revelation of how Fox was operating (from both a legal liability as well as a journalistic ethics perspective) is how they treated their fact-checking process. When Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich tweeted on November 12 that "there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised" Carlson texted Hannity "Please get her fired. It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke." If Dominion needed to prove the actual malice (and it's not yet clear if they would need to) in a defamation case, they couldn't have asked for better evidence.

There isn't much for me to say that I haven't said before. My operating theory has long been that some people seemed to earnestly believe the crazy theories they were spouting about Hugo Chavez or whatever (e.g. Powell, Giuliani, maybe Dobbs) while many others were just pretending to entertain it because it was in their best financial interests (e.g. Carlson, Hannity, Murdoch, etc.) and the text messages confirm this. To Carlson's credit though, he endured a lot of negative pushback from his criticism of Powell.

I've already done my hand-wringing on how the media seems to love shooting itself in the foot, except it was framed in context of how liberal outlets fucked up the Covington debacle from four years ago. The Dominion lawsuit demonstrates the problem behind audience capture; Fox pundits and reporters had to deal with a credible financial pressure to cater to the crazy fringes of their audience for fear of losing them to their less scrupulous competitors. If so, it would be a demand-side problem. I'm not sure if the problem with liberal media fuck-ups follows the same framework, but I'm open to arguments. My general impression there is that the call is coming from inside the house: liberal journalists too afraid of their fellow cohort to break ranks. I suppose a good test-case scenario would be to see how NYT's current "trans youth reporting controversy" plays out. They obviously already got a severe amount of criticism from the activist fringe, but would a significant portion of their audience care? And if so, where would they go?

One last question: has anyone here changed their opinion on the 2020 stolen election theories?

Yes: watching this campaign to exterminate all non-regime media has made me certain the exact same groups would use dirty tricks to "fortify" an election, and that denying it is just an exercise in sadistic gaslighting.

Truth is a defense to defamation. Why do you think Fox isn't trying that approach?

Is truth a defense to being suppressed on Twitter/Facebook/Google/YouTube/NYT/WaPo/AllTheOutletsThatPeopleUse? To being universally derided as mis/dis/mal-information? Truth may eventually prevent some actors from having to pay legal costs (and others might be liars), but in the meantime, why do you think Twitter/Facebook/Google/YouTube/NYT/WaPo/AllTheOutletsThatPeopleUse aren'te trying that approach?

Being suppressed by a private entity and defamation claims are not governed by the same legal standard so no, truth would not be a defense to suppression. I don't understand the rest of your post.

I hadn't realized you were literally a member of the party's terrorist wing.

That explains why I smelled sadistic glee in bragging about getting away with it in all your posts about the 2020 violence and election.

I follow your buddies in "Redneck Revolt" and all the affiliated groups. They're open about what their goals are, and so it's easy to see what you're up to.

Tell us about your activities with them.

Edit: engaging with people we disagree with is a good use of time. But leftists aren't people: burn in hell.

  • -11

I assume that you chose to avoid answering what I thought was a simple question because it challenged your worldview to an uncomfortable degree. Ideally, you could introspect and openly scrutinize why your feelings do not match up with reality. Less ideally, radio silence is an option. The least ideal is trying to evade scrutiny by throwing a ball of confetti in the air. This only serves to draw attention to the fact that you don't have an answer. It's especially obvious when done with such little finesse and subtlety.

As a last note, I do sincerely commend you for the transparency in linking to my writing directly so that everyone can judge for themselves how much your feelings match up with reality. I should note that I've never heard of Minnesota SRA before but in case it needs to be said, I support 2A for everyone and do not support ending capitalism. Hope that clears things up!

I assume that you chose to avoid answering what I thought was a simple question because it challenged your worldview to an uncomfortable degree.

Should we assume that every time you don't answer a question, change a hypothetical scenario, etc, you do that for the same reason?

I think that would be a reasonable assumption, yes. Are you aware of any instances where this happened?

Here you go.

Here's another.

And another.

That's just this thread.

An unanswered question is very weak evidence of someone doing so because they're uncomfortably challenged because there's plenty of innocent explanations for why someone wouldn't respond (e.g. touch grass, etc.). The context of what I was responding to here is an instance of someone having the time and nevertheless acrobatically evading the question. This scenario is strong evidence of my assertion.

More comments

Sure, off the top of my head I can recall when I posted the example involving Kurt Eichenwald and his tentacle porn tab, and modified the IRL scenario to create a hypothetical where telling the truth would make you look worse than "confessing" to something that didn't happen. You ignored the hypothetical, and debated the IRL case. I was happy to put that down to a misunderstanding, but it seems like I shouldn't have done so.

I thought I did address your hypothetical. I admit I didn't really understand what it had to do with my original question, which was asking "If Nixon was the victim of a deep-state conspiracy, why didn't he tell anyone?" I interpreted your response as essentially "well what if Nixon thought about telling the truth but worried it would make it him look like he's digging his own hole further so he chose to stay quiet to avoid that worse outcome" which certainly is a possibility, but I didn't find that explanation plausible enough to take seriously.

You're welcome to ask me whatever other questions you want, or point out whatever misunderstanding I made.

You have been warned about this kind of personal antagonism and attack-dogging repeatedly. You have been told to stop playing political commissar.

You have one of the lengthiest rap sheets here in our short time on the new site, and clearly you don't care; you're not here to discuss anything, you're here to snarl, spit, count coup and try to score gotchas.

Banned for 2 weeks, pending mod discussion (I will be arguing for a permaban).

ETA: Following mod discussion, general consensus is that you're a terrible commenter with a terrible history, and while there was some ambivalence about permabanning you over this comment in particular, your track record justifies it. You were warned repeatedly to knock it off or you'd be banned, and you very intentionally chose not to knock it off, even continuing your petty aggression and personal grudges in DMs and reports.

Come on man, @ymeskhout is routinely one of the highest quality and most evidence based posters here. Plus he’s got great legal knowledge.

We’re lucky to have him, especially if we actually care about not becoming a far right echo chamber.

I'll always remain amenable to substantive criticism about the way I write about this topic or any other topic, as seen here. The challenge here is that good faith criticism is indistinguishable from bad faith attacks when details are absent. Sometimes people just have a particularly fragile worldview, and so they get really reflexively upset when I present a conclusion that they viscerally dislike. I put effort in laying out my arguments and citations in a transparent manner, so if I happen to be wrong, it should be rather trivial to demonstrate how and why. If someone refuses to do this and instead chooses to resort to an irrelevant drive-by snipe, I have to assume they're just airing out their frustrations because they lack the ability to show where I'm wrong.

So I welcome any substantive criticism you have about anything I've written. In this instance, if you believe I'm acting in bad faith or just here to shit on the so-called other side, as an example one thing you could do is take any sentence in my post above and show me how you would rewrite it. If your criticism is not related to the specific way I string words together, you're welcome to tell me what other meta changes I can make which would address your concerns. After all, if there isn't even an illusion of good faith on my part, it should be fairly easy for you to demonstrate so with specificity.

I just think this topic is a waste of your talent, and specifically wasted on a topic where you're unlikely to change anyone's mind with this kind of effort, so from my perspective it looks more like just doing it for jollies. If you find it worthwhile, then my perspective is wrong, and you do you, man.

I have no real rebuttal that this topic isn't a waste of my time. I'm aware that if someone is immune to evidence or otherwise unwilling to falsify their theory, then they're not going to change their mind, but perhaps there is some residual utility in drawing broadly applicable lessons from the scenarios (for instance, the incentives that people in the media face, why/how so many people claim to believe things that were so fanciful, etc.). I do concede that I find this topic very entertaining in addition to just interesting, but that's also true of many other topics we talk about here. The world is dreary so it's nice to laugh a little.

Regarding the Italian satellite issue, I conceded that I used the motte-and-bailey in an erroneous manner (you may not have caught the edit to my post when you linked it). I do maintain it's fair of me to bring up what a top level Trump official earnestly asked the investigative arm of the US government to investigate. I can't be accused of nutpacking when I'm highlighting the actions of someone so central to the issue. I gather that much of the negative reaction I get when I mention the Italian satellite thing is that it's acutely embarrassing and impossible to handwave away. it's relevant because it's illustrative of the credulity the Trump administration was operating on regarding the stolen election theories, it shows they were willing to entertaining virtually any theory, no matter how implausible it was on its face. I understand it's an extremely inconvenient fact for anyone who wants to argue that Trump was acting in good faith in investigating election fraud, but as Abe Lincoln said, facts don't care about your feelings.

I really appreciate your feedback.

More comments

I’d hope that most of us are having fun as we’re shitting on the other side. There’s a reason this is called the Culture War thread!

As long as people are reasonably intelligent and polite while doing the shitting I don’t see a problem.

If you aren't here to talk to people you disagree with, you probably shouldn't be here.

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