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
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I personally believe the US election was rigged. It's already been admitted by the media, they only use the word 'fortified' instead of rigged. I'm sure everyone is aware of that article.

I am not aware of that article. Could you link it, please?

What exactly were these people doing, if not projecting influence and power such that Biden would be elected? Is that not rigging?

Groups "projecting influence and power" to get someone elected is called an election campaign. It's part of every election. What is the dividing line between legitimate campaigning and "election rigging"?

If you can quietly threaten that there'll be riots, suppression, endless legal warfare, against officials who don't use their leeway to come to the correct procedural/administrative conclusions, is that not rigging?

I doubt many people were going to vote for Trump but ended up voting for Biden because they were afraid of riots.

I'm not sure what you mean by "suppression".

Trump, having lost the election, is now the one engaging in "endless legal warfare".

What "career implications" would there be, for which officials, and for what kind of "procedural/administrative" decisions?

Rigging involves everything from stuffing votes, ballot harvesting, procedural manipulation to media manipulation.

My understanding of the word "rigging" only includes ballot stuffing and similar practices such as destroying or just not counting certain ballots. I believe this is the common understanding of the word, and broadening it as you do is a motte-and-bailey.

I hadn't heard of "ballot harvesting" before. Having looked up an explanation, it doesn't seem to be inherently fraudulent, but it probably does make certain kinds of "rigging" as described above easier. Do you have any reason to believe ballot harvesting had a significant effect on the outcome of the 2020 election?

I'm not sure what you mean by "procedural manipulation".

If by "media manipulation", you mean biased media coverage, then yes, that clearly did happen, but I don't think many people would classify it as "rigging". If biased media coverage is a form rigging, has there ever been an election that wasn't rigged?

A more expansive definition would include education and demographic policies, which do not favor the right.

Wouldn't that encompass literally all of politics, given that obtaining votes is ultimately a politician's biggest concern and any policy they implement or support is designed to increase their chance of re-election?

I am not aware of that article. Could you link it, please?

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream — a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. . . . They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

Groups "projecting influence and power" to get someone elected is called an election campaign. It's part of every election. What is the dividing line between legitimate campaigning and "election rigging"?

There's a distinction between making an argument about why you should lead the country and using resources to ensure the right outcome. Left-aligned NGOs controlling the actual mechanics of elections (in this case funded by left-aligned billionaires) is effectively election rigging. How could anyone know that they actually oversaw it properly? From the above link, these people seem to think that Trump was assaulting democracy, so they could conceptualize themselves as defending democracy by ensuring that Trump lost the election. The changes in rules regarding mail-in ballots just prior to this particular election are also significant.

I doubt many people were going to vote for Trump but ended up voting for Biden because they were afraid of riots.

Say people find evidence that the election is rigged against Trump. This evidence has to go through a judge before any kind of actual action can happen. The judge has the freedom to decide it's inconclusive, or that they don't have jurisdiction or find some technical reason against it. That's what the Supreme Court did with Texas. Likewise, the officials who are in charge of reporting these things have careers and aspirations that could be snuffed out if they make the wrong choices. You don't find many Chinese officials willing to criticize Xi Xinping, he has a very high level of control over the bureaucracy. There were vast legions of officials and judges coming out to attack Trump through his whole term, he had a very low level of control over the bureaucracy. 92% of DC voted Biden, 5% Trump.

What "career implications" would there be, for which officials, and for what kind of "procedural/administrative" decisions?

These lawyers got harassed, for example. There are all kinds of informal methods that can be used. If you don't like someone's politics, you can refuse to hire them or get rid of them for unrelated character reasons. It could be made known that there are grants or generous donations that will become available for those who make the right decision.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/26/michigan-judge-sanctions-pro-trump-lawyers

I'm not sure what you mean by "suppression".

For example, Pfizer could delay the results of its vaccine development plan (accelerated by Trump under Operation Warp Speed) such that their positive results would only be apparent after the election:

Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage.

This means that the statistical strength of the result is likely far stronger than was initially expected. It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would likely have been available in October, as its CEO, Albert Bourla, had initially predicted.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/09/covid-19-vaccine-from-pfizer-and-biontech-is-strongly-effective-early-data-from-large-trial-indicate/comment-page-7/#comment-3047884

I'm not sure what you mean by "procedural manipulation".

Adjusting mail-in ballot rules such that fraud becomes easier. Or making it such that voters can vote without showing ID.

Do you have any reason to believe ballot harvesting had a significant effect on the outcome of the 2020 election?

Donald Trump lost Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin by a tiny margin, a few tens of thousands. Biden won Michigan by 3% but Michigan is dominated by 95% Democrat voting Detroit, where ballot harvesting was made legal and Republicans were very angry about it: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/09/23/opinion-judges-ballot-decision-threatens-election-integrity/3506593001/

Detroit is probably the most corrupt city in the US, or at least in the top 5 for machine politics. 95% Dem? Really? The big swing in the middle of the night that moved everything away from Trump is also pretty dubious.

Wouldn't that encompass literally all of politics, given that obtaining votes is ultimately a politician's biggest concern and any policy they implement or support is designed to increase their chance of re-election?

You can persuade people that you're right, or you can indoctrinate them when they're young and impressionable, or you can bring in new people who semi-automatically become part of your patronage network, or you can cover up any evidence that you're wrong. There are more or less appropriate methods to ensure your re-election.

Detroit is probably the most corrupt city in the US, or at least in the top 5 for machine politics. 95% Dem? Really?

I mean, yes. That sort of voting pattern has been consistent in Detroit for decades. It seems people don't really get there can be very red and very blue areas in this country. Like, there are countries in the rural part of Texas, et al that vote 90%+ Trump. I don't think there's any fraud there.

I am not aware of that article. Could you link it, please?

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

This is the article in question: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

I do not know if it had been edited since publication, do you might check some archives.

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

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