site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   38856 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wojak is at the Republican primary, standing in the corner, his feet hurt, I bet they don't even know how I've transcended simian instincts.

Way to prove him correct. Did you feel clever when writing it? Or did you feel Based?

This is just dumb, Hanania is arguing against a cartoon Republican he just made up in his head.

No, he is not. In fact he isn't arguing at all. He is trying to normalize shaming of Trump loyalists as low-status, trash, unserious Republicans, to divert the remaining talent to a candidate with better chances – both of winning the election and of prosecuting a desirable policy.

We still have tons of Trump loyalists even on this relatively sophisticated sub, for all the good this loyalty has done for them. Hanania is very mean, sure, but his meanness is sensible. What would it take for them to abandon Trump, if his demonstrable political ineptitude, lack of gratitude or respect for his base, ugly and self-defeating tantrums, immaturity so pronounced one has to suspect it's affected etc. – did not?

I think he's correct that it's only humiliation of Trump as a man. But it doesn't really matter. The sad truth is that very many people do not even have a simian idea of political worth. It only matters for them whether voting for Trump is Based or Chringe.

a candidate with better chances – both of winning the election and of prosecuting a desirable policy.

Like Mitt "the Mormon Theocrat" Romney? Being nice and clean-cut never stopped the attacks from the Democrats, why do you think Trump became so popular? He drove them mad, but the usual attacks rolled off him like water off a duck's back, and they couldn't stop him getting to the White House instead of the anointed empress.

You don't have to like Trump or think he was a good president to appreciate "he drove the people who hate us absolutely foaming at the mouth mad" and enjoy that.

Thank you for providing an example. Yes, the point of voting Trump is to Own The Libs, drive them mad. This is exactly what Hanania is talking about.

Like Mitt "the Mormon Theocrat" Romney? Being nice and clean-cut never stopped the attacks from the Democrats

I suppose we will never know how well Romney would've handled those attacks were he to become POTUS.

Or he didn't become POTUS because of the way he handled those attacks. Which might explain why Trump supporters prefer owning the Libs even though the strategy is passed it's expiration date.

What would it take for them to abandon Trump, if his demonstrable political ineptitude, lack of gratitude or respect for his base, ugly and self-defeating tantrums, immaturity so pronounced one has to suspect it's affected etc. – did not?

The only one here disrespecting Trump's base is Hanania. Why would Trump supporters care what Hanania thinks when he's expressed nothing but contempt for them? By the same logic, why should I care what you think of me?

Way to prove him correct. Did you feel clever when writing it? Or did you feel Based?

It's fair game if this is how Hanania wants to play. We need to trick Trump supporters by looking masculine and tough? OK then, Hanania is a pale nerd who looks like he could barely bench the bar.

Oh, right, Hanania doesn't believe that applies to himself because he and his audience are the smart crowd, teehee, we're not boorish and vulgar like those populists. That's the problem, Hanania's argument isn't an argument, it's contempt disguised as an argument. There is no intellectual content, it's all attitude, it's about looking like an intellectual, by looking down on people who aren't trying to look intellectual.

The hell does any of that mean? Let's go step by step:

Why would Trump supporters care

Does it look like he's talking to Trump supporters even to express contempt?

what Hanania thinks when he's expressed nothing but contempt

Because arguments are to be considered on their merits, for one thing, and there is demonstrably some merit to DeSantis but zero merit to Trump as a political representative? Because this attitude makes you extremely vulnerable to trivial manipulations?

By the same logic, why should I care what you think of me?

What logic exactly?

And why would I care whether you care or not? Scratch that, what even is this inane macho train of thought about caring or not caring, this one-upmanship? Hanania talks of Trumpists from a zoological perspective; I am using you as a reference point. You are demanding gestures of unconditional respect for your position as advance payment for deigning to engage at all. But this precludes the possibility of any conscious change on your part, thus makes debating you a waste of time.

Still. Let me elucidate my opinion: the point is not to convince you of anything. The point is to convince those on the margins of the Red Tribe that your kind is a lost cause, that you are completely impossible to rescue from your self-satisfied vulgarity, your boomer Facebook group Qanon fetishes, your perverse addiction to throwing tantrums and toothless LARPing.

Hanania probably does believe that, hypothetically, you may be enticed by an alpha male chimp who physically assaults Trump, or by some other bait. This is all peripheral. At the core of that piece is Hanania's desire to have smarter Republicans – not just RINOs, but every Republican with more brains and greater self-restraint than an average Chechen teenager has – join him in losing compassion for you, for their own family and culture, and plot for disenfranchising you from here on out. It is a long-term agenda that is meant to outlive Trump as a political figure, regardless of how well he does in 2024.

The point is to convince those on the margins of the Red Tribe that your kind is a lost cause, that you are completely impossible to rescue from your self-satisfied vulgarity, your boomer Facebook group Qanon fetishes, your perverse addiction to throwing tantrums and toothless LARPing.

I'm not really seeing that expressed in that piece. Okay, he does think Republicans make tons of mistakes, systematically, because they're not trying to address root issues. But most of the piece just seems like he's saying that Republicans want to be entertained. And he's lumped himself among that to some extent, he's clearly enjoying the whole show, writing that piece etc. It looks to me more to be a mix of just a suggestion of the style of thing that Desantis needs to do to win people over—the professed purpose, may be some, at least, of the actual purpose—and secondly, to talk about what he thinks the appeal of Trump actually is to people.

Hanania is also here endorsing some of the tactics that you seem to be saying he actually is trying to oppose. My current read on him is that he likes the show, and cares about policy and accurate analysis.

Because arguments are to be considered on their merits, for one thing, and there is demonstrably some merit to DeSantis but zero merit to Trump as a political representative?

If arguments are to be considered on their merits, than Hananias argument is garbage even when there's more merit to DeSantis as a representative.

That's the problem, Hanania's argument isn't an argument, it's contempt disguised as an argument. There is no intellectual content, it's all attitude, it's about looking like an intellectual, by looking down on people who aren't trying to look intellectual.

Well, there is some intellectual content. It can be summed up in one sentence and the rest of the article is just delivering that one bit of content in an entertaining way. But overall I agree with you that there is not much intellectual content there. However, why is that a problem for you? Is it the contempt? The lack of intellectual content? The fact that it was posted here even though it would probably have gotten modded had it been posted here by Hanania himself? Something else?

However, why is that a problem for you?

Where do you perceive there is a problem for SlowBoy?

This is a discussion forum. You don't need to have a problem with something to weigh in with an opinion on it. An article was posted for visibility and at least implicitly soliciting opinions on it. Slowboy shared his. When people engaged his opinion, he elaborated back.

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