site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   29773 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 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.

14
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I know the argument for going now, while he has momentum going, and that waiting will just dissipate anything he has built up

The other argument for going now is that Biden is just an incredibly weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout, and the only person who can almost certainly lose to him, and can inspire Dems to turn out, is Trump.

2028 will be a whole different ballgame, and the Dems currently have a shallow bench, but if Trump wins the nom, then Biden likely wins re-election, which means 4 more years for Democrats to attempt to shore up their electoral odds.

Oh, and for a fun bonus, if Trump wins the primary but loses the general in 2024, he is STILL ELIGIBLE TO RUN IN 2028, so if his health permits he very well could CONTINUE to be the 800 pound gorilla.

This seems to be a quandary, but not one that suggests waiting on the sidelines as the wise choice.

The other argument for going now is that Biden is just an incredibly weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout, and the only person who can almost certainly lose to him, and can inspire Dems to turn out, is Trump.

and further down the thread

The Democrat base is, to my perception, exceptionally weak right now.

If the American right genuinely thinks this, they are high on their own supply and deserve to lose. I am not American and don't see the vibes that you guys are relying on, but I can see the election results. Biden won in 2020 on a record high turnout - if that is "a weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout" then I want to see the kind of Dem landslide that would result if they find a merely mediocre candidate. Midterms and even more so special elections are all about base mobilisation (because of the generally low turnout) and the Democrats significantly overperformed in 2022, and are killing it in off-cycle elections so far this year.

I am guessing here (as I said, no access to the vibes) but it isn't hard to see two reasons why the D base should be unusually energised right now.

  1. January 6th, and more broadly Trump's attempt to remain in office despite losing the 2020 election. Even if Trump is not the nominee (and as far as I can see only a medical catastrophe or a SCOTUS decision that he is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th amendment can stop him), the R primary electorate seem determined to double down on this. From the perspective of anyone who thinks that the 2020 election was not, in fact, rigged, and that the Trump campaign knew this, 2024 is a Flight 93 election because the Republicans are no longer committed to the idea that a Republican president should leave office after losing an election.
  2. Dobbs. I have posted before pointing out that the history of countries other than the USA is that abortion is a sufficiently important issue that in countries where abortion is "on the table" for democratic politics, the median voter ends up getting what they want. The Republicans are more out of step with the medial voter on this issue, at just the time where Dobbs makes it a matter of democracy.

A few points:

I think you may be somewhat underestimating the impact that the COVID election law changes had on turnout. Democrats are typically low-effort voters, and so gained hugely from the expanded access. Not sure how many of those changes are still in effect, but something to find out.

Good points on Jan 6 and Dobbs. I think some who are immersed in the conservosphere forget just how big those points are to the rank-and-file voters.

Additionally, I think conservatives have a habit of underestimating just how many blue-tribers the country has at this point. Like sure, they're mostly in a few cities or whatever, but it's probably 65-75% of the population of the country by now. The red tribe is vastly outmanned currently, though demographic trends will shift it back in 80ish years or so barring major cultural or tech changes. Blue-triber conservatives, meanwhile, tend to forget that they functionally don't exist as far as democracy is concerned.

Umm… blue tribe is a cultural distinction undergoing ethnogenesis. Not a generic terms for the democrat’s base. It’s a minority of the country, more of one than the red tribe, it’s just that their preferred candidates semi permanently win the minority votes- even though many of those minorities have more culturally in common with the red tribe.

I disagree on a few core points: I understand blue tribe is their own thing separate from the Democratic party, hence my point about blue-tribe conservatives.

The majority of the country watches, listens to, eats, drinks, and generally has the values and preferences of blue-tribe. First generation immigrants do not, but second-generation do by a massive margin. Perhaps the one major exception is LGBT issues, but that does not disqualify them completely.

Minorities may have a fewmajor cultural differences with blue tribe, but they align far closer than they do to red tribe. Immigrants typically are not at all supporters of the small-government, pro-gun, pro-christianity, pro-self-sustainability, pro-private-property-rights, anti-elitist, anti-intellectualist value set of the red tribe. AADS are probably the closest match, but they try very hard to signal that they are not of the red tribe, and red tribe does the same in return.

Do minority groups behave exactly the same as blue-tribe whites? No, but they aren't meant to. Many cultural groups have different roles for different classes of people, and blue-tribe is no exception.

1.) Eh, it's not that. For one, we saw big-time turnout in the 2020 election from both sides. Ya' know, the whole Trump gained x million votes that his supporters like to crow about. Ironically, the Right, by eschewing mail-in voting has fallen for the same false idea that my fellow lefties fall for, that all non-voters are just lefties who refuse to vote, when in reality, most non-voters are either people who truly don't care or are weirdos with deeply right and left-leaning view (like, actually deeply believing abortion is murder, but also that we should have single-payer health care), and thus, not voting for anybody.

What's actually changed is the type of voter each party has. Well the idea that the Democrat's are now the party of the elite is overblown by people who dislike the Democratic Party (and this include a group of leftists), it is true there is a shift that a group of low-turnout voters moved over the GOP, while high-turnout suburban voters moved over to the Democrat's, and that's actually one of the big reasons for the overperformance of the Democrat's in the midterms and in basically every special election.

As people have joked about before, there are McCain/Romney voters who in 2036 will be full-throated behind the AOC/Beto ticket.

2.) I agree with that number, if you go by the definition of Red Tribe this website seems to use, which would not include people like some of Trump's closest advisors. But, I do agree this is substantively a center-left country, and a few lucky EV wins (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016) along with great timing on SC Judges dying have given right-leaning people an overrated view of their own support within the country, and we're seeing this in backlash to Dobbs.

Like, on the abortion issue, the basic thing is the median voter may not agree with an ultra pro-choice person like me on late-term abortions, but they have zero trust that the GOP will pass reasonable laws, and it doesn't help every single Republican politician has suddenly decided to love federalism after spending decades talking about the need for national abortion bans.

But, I do agree this is substantively a center-left country, and a few lucky EV wins (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016) along with great timing on SC Judges dying have given right-leaning people an overrated view of their own support within the country

Only ever paying attention to Presidential elections is going to give you a really warped view of the country and the electorate.

First: if you think the US was a center-left country in 2000, you're just lost. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Second: Republicans controlled at least one chamber in 39 out of 50 state legislatures in 2016 and had 31 governorships (and would win 3 more that year). The US was still a center right ght country in 2016, it's just that the Trump years have caused a lot of center-right people to question their convictions just enough to be willing to vote for what at least looks like a sane Democrat over Trump or a Trump affiliated Republican.

I don't see Dem voters turning out for Biden against Trump but not for Biden against DeSantis, because of all the scaremongering (I mean, advisories about 'don't travel to Florida if you're black or gay'?)

Four years on, I could see DeSantis taking on Newsom (I'm wincing as I type that, the beige versus the beige Clash of the Hairdos) with a good chance.

The whole question is that if someone other than Trump wins the nom, does Trump throw any weight behind them.

If he does, then I think they, particularly DeSantis, has a solid chance at winning with the GOP base, + Trump coalition, + dissatisfied independents in their corner.

The Democrat base is, to my perception, exceptionally weak right now.

The problem for Trump is that he energizes Dems AND alienates some % of the GOP and independents, and thus is the one guy that might bring out Dem voters without similarly engaging the GOP and independent coalition.

I admit I cannot see what Trump can say or do to make his case to the nation for a second term.

Four years on, I could see DeSantis taking on Newsom

The main positive there is that it could be a decent revisitation of the different approaches to Covid mitigation, and maybe we as a nation can actually demonstrate a preference. But having that conversation 8 years after the fact is far too late, if you ask me.

The whole question is that if someone other than Trump wins the nom, does Trump throw any weight behind them.

Lose gracefully? Donald Trump?

I don't know what that would even look like, because it's yet to happen. I'm genuine and serious here: could you describe just what this would look like from him? If there is any one man I can't ever, not once, picture being second fiddle to anyone, it would have to be Trump.

I think you also need to run when you can run. And being number 2 poll position the last few years meant it was time to take a run.

Also Trumps not going anywhere anytime soon. We will have a Trump in the primary for the next 20 maybe 40 years. If Trump wins POTUS you’ve got Donald Jr in 2028. Or Ivanka. Potentially even Kushner. I was going to say surprisingly we’ve never had this before. But the last 30 years Bush and Clinton’s stuck around.

If Trump squeaks a victory in 2024 I think Kushner would be an entertaining development. What would leftist Jews do? As far as I know the Jews have never had one of their own in the seat of power in a major country (besides Israel). Zelensky in Ukraine is the only one I can name in a European society.

Kushner has no chance. He isn't very bright or charismatic.

Wow, it’s almost like the shadowy class consciousness is overstated.

Disraeli would be your guy. Technically converted in childhood, but, you know.

There were a couple of Jewish PMs in early 20th century Italy, and iirc one in interwar France.

We will have a Trump in the primary for the next 20 maybe 40 years.

The life expectancy of a 77-year-old male is 9.3 years.

The probability he dies in the next 10 years is 45.6%.

The probability he dies in the 5 years after that is 51%.

"a trump" meaning counting his kids

Those probabilities count those who are on deaths door. Not someone whose still active and still mentally lucid.

Though I think it was fairly obvious a chose “a Trump” and not “Trump” then said 40 years and talked about his children to mean that he will have Trump incumbency for a while. If he wins 2024 you just run Trump Jr in 2028 with Sr. still running rallies. And probably living in the White House if they would win 2028.

Though I think it was fairly obvious a chose “a Trump” and not “Trump” then said 40 years and talked about his children to mean that he will have Trump incumbency for a while

Fair enough, my bad.

Trump seems to have an very good genetics, and his father lived to 93. So I'd give a food chance of him making to 90. Past that it all depends on how good the medicine gets in the meantime...

He has a few kids that could act as his blood boy (I apologize for putting that thought in your head)

The joke re; blood boys is that it's dilution of old plasma that helps according to more research.

All you need to get the effect is donate plasma. Or so it seems from the experiments on mice.

How many of those are 300 240 lbs?

I’ve been morbidly curious about this ever since he took office. The best medicine on the planet handled his COVID alright, but I’m not sure how much can be done in the case of heart failures.

He isn't 300 lbs. 250 maybe.

Oh, I guess you’re right. 245 as of his last White House physical, and he claims to have lost some since then.

The Fulton county jail says he’s 215 pounds.

I ran into that part, too, via a WaPo article. But it immediately went into some bizarre speculation about systemic bias underestimates of other defendants' weights, so I wasn't sure how seriously to take it.

so I wasn't sure how seriously to take it.

More seriously than WaPo speculation.

.. they don't weigh them ?

More comments

Benjamin Disraeli, British PM and founder of modern British conservatism :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli

With the caveat he was baptized at 12 but ethnically Jewish.

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