site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34513 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 New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, it's true that many stolen election advocates engaged in motte-and-bailey acrobatics* [see edit], oscillating between "Italian satellites changed the voting tally" baileys and then retreating into "All we meant was that the rules were unfair" motte. Obviously this wasn't helped by Trump's credulity and proclivity towards surrounding himself with Yes Men who would just repeat whatever flattering theories he preferred. Who else would you blame for the confusion you're criticizing?

Edit: As @Supah_Schmendrick points out below, this was an erroneous application of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Repost:

I framed the motte/bailey in an erroneous way. It is not true that anyone who had a negative opinion of the 2020 election necessarily wants to believe in Italian satellites. Although inadvertent on my part, it was wrong of me to frame the argument with that insinuation. Some version of what @orthoxerox wrote below is what I should've said:

The bailey is "the election results have been tampered with in a felonious way, and if these crimes were successfully prosecuted that would change the winner of the election". That's the territory you want to occupy, to make people think Biden won illegally.

When pressured, you can retreat to the "we have no countermeasures against the cathedral influencing the voters to vote for Biden and influencing the election officials to interpret the legislation in a way that is biased toward helping more Dem voters vote" motte

I don't think "Italian satellites changed the voting tally" is actually the bailey - it's not terrain that everyone wants to occupy; it's not the goal in and of itself. From the stolen-election perspective, the end goal (thus the bailey) is "the election results do not represent a fair vote or a small-d democratic mandate."

The "Italian satellites" and "unfair rules/elite lies" are the various types of argument-soldiers sent out to secure the bailey. If the "Italian satellites" thing were true, it would be extremely good evidence for the bailey position - actually fiddling with vote totals is a very good reason to declare an election void. Unfortunately, the audacity and putative strength of the claim is betrayed by its falsity.

The "unfair rules/elite lites" arguments are much weaker evidence for the bailey position, precisely because they can be pattern-matched to other dirty tricks in American political history that we've just learned to shrug and accept. However, they have much stronger basis, and are harder to dismiss as groundless.

The reason I make this distinction is because the way you phrased it suggests to me that you think anyone who has a negative opinion of the 2020 election would like to or perhaps wants to accept the "Italian satellites"-style arguments, but falls back on the true "election fortification/information suppression/media manipulation/weaponized intelligence community" arguments when they're forced to. This is not true. There are people who believe in the wild conspiracy theories, and there are people who have digested true reportage. That both may arrive at similar conclusions about the election, the media, the Democratic party, or politics more generally, is beside the point.

From the stolen-election perspective, the end goal (thus the bailey) is "the election results do not represent a fair vote or a small-d democratic mandate."

If that's the bailey for "stolen elections" then every US presidental election ever has been stolen due to the electoral college.

You are correct, I framed the motte/bailey in an erroneous way. It is not true that anyone who had a negative opinion of the 2020 election necessarily wants to believe in Italian satellites. Although inadvertent on my part, it was wrong of me to frame the argument with that insinuation. Some version of what @orthoxerox wrote below is what I should've said:

The bailey is "the election results have been tampered with in a felonious way, and if these crimes were successfully prosecuted that would change the winner of the election". That's the territory you want to occupy, to make people think Biden won illegally.

When pressured, you can retreat to the "we have no countermeasures against the cathedral influencing the voters to vote for Biden and influencing the election officials to interpret the legislation in a way that is biased toward helping more Dem voters vote" motte

I don't think "Italian satellites changed the voting tally" is actually the bailey - it's not terrain that everyone wants to occupy; it's not the goal in and of itself. From the stolen-election perspective, the end goal (thus the bailey) is "the election results do not represent a fair vote or a small-d democratic mandate."

That's the motte. The bailey is "the election results have been tampered with in a felonious way, and if these crimes were successfully prosecuted that would change the winner of the election". That's the territory you want to occupy, to make people think Biden won illegally.

When pressured, you can retreat to the "we have no countermeasures against the cathedral influencing the voters to vote for Biden and influencing the election officials to interpret the legislation in a way that is biased toward helping more Dem voters vote" motte.

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