site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35016 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As others have noted, almost any Republican would've won in 2016, and most probably would've won more convincingly.

Trump and Trumpist candidates have otherwise generally underperformed generic ballots and run behind less Trumpy candidates (most prominently: Trump losing both GA senate seats in 2020 and then doing it again two years later, even as Kemp cruised to re-election). The GOP would be vastly better served electorally tacking back towards the center, which would enable them to capitalize on many of the Dems' wackier social position. This would displease the more radical elements of their base, but they have little leverage beyond threatening to crash the party with no survivors (which, to be fair, they have so far used to some effect).

As others have noted, almost any Republican would've won in 2016, and most probably would've won more convincingly.

Winning elections is not the goal. Securing wins on policy is. Trump was quite bad at this, but all the Republican candidates who could have "won more convincingly" were incapable of even trying. "the more radical elements of the base", as you call them, are a significant enough fraction of actual GOP voters that the coalition probably doesn't work without them, and their interests and concerns have been systematically ignored for decades. "Tacking back toward the center"... the center of what? Consensus opinion, as dictated by Blue Tribe Elites?

The Post-Trump GOP is very different from the pre-Trump GOP, and the differences favor the interests of Trump's supporters. Without Trump, this would not be so, but your analysis elides the distinction.

Doesn't matter anyway. "Any Republican could have beaten Hillary" is anti-Trump cope. The other candidates didn't have enough fight in them to go against the Democratic Hillary juggernaut, and it showed. That's a large part of why Trump won in the primaries in the first place. Jeb would have been a clueless loser, Cruz a sore loser, and Rubio a more genteel loser.

As others have noted, almost any Republican would've won in 2016, and most probably would've won more convincingly.

I've seen people here comment that without any actual argument let alone things to back that claim up. And whether they argue it or not, no they wouldn't because any other GOP wouldn't have driven the turnout in the midwest to beat the Clinton-Obama political machine. Absent those new voters, they lose. With generic GOP derp like they had in 2012 despite a lingering economic recession and wildly unpopular policies, they didn't.

Trump and Trumpist candidates have otherwise generally underperformed generic ballots and run behind less Trumpy candidates

of the hundreds, you may find some examples, but in general no they didn't

also, "generic ballots" are not real ballots in real outcomes

most prominently: Trump losing both GA senate seats in 2020 and then doing it again two years later, even as Kemp cruised to re-election

any person who claims David Perdue or Kelly Loeffler are "trump and trumpist candidates" isn't a person who knows what they're talking about

no

Loeffler and Perdue were endorsed by Trump and ran campaigns leaning heavily on their association with Trump. To say they were not Trumpist is just disowning failure. Which arguably gets to why Trumpists keep losing - they're unable to acknowledge failure and course correct (e.g. all the cope around 2020). If you want to talk about 'real outcomes' Trump's "wins" come in the form of cannibalizing other Republicans while costing the party critical senate seats (AZ, GA, MI, PA, CO... and his candidate also lost in Alaska, though that at least didn't cost the GOP a seat). Arguably also cost the GOP state legislatures in states like PA and MI. The biggest win of post-2020 GOP politics was Youngkin knocking off McAuliffe in VA and he very deliberately ran a campaign downplaying association with Trump and his followers.

mitch mcconnell was endorsed by trump, was he a trumpist candidate? no

that is a ridiculous metric by which to label candidates

david perdue specifically told donald trump to stay away for his run-off so he did and he lost, but I'm sure you have some excuse as to why this totally shows he was a Trumpist candidate anyway

we have too different perspectives of what the world looks like or what has happened over the last 6 years in order to have a productive discussion about this topic

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