site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   28282 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

McConell had a scary moment which looks like it could be the onset of dementia or Alzheimers. He froze up for a solid 30 seconds just staring aimlessly when a question was asked of him as to whether he would run for re-election in 2026. People have been saying similar things about Biden, although Biden has had the same verbal tics for his entire career so it'd be harder to know for certain. Dianne Feinstein only just recently announced her retirement despite being over 90 years old. Trump is hardly a spring chicken himself at 77 years old.

Some have advocated for age limits on politicians, as older people can have cognitive decline and are presumably out-of-touch compared to younger counterparts. How much of a real issue is this? How long can aides keep cognitive decline out of the spotlight for before it becomes too obvious to ignore?

It might not even be dementia. Elderly people have less physical stamina and "slack in the system" in general. A bad night's sleep (not uncommon for politicians), mild food poisoning, a dizzy spell, whatever - they're all going to hit an 80-year-old harder than a 40-year-old.

People do vary a lot, so I don't find it inconceivable that there might be some octogenarians who are perfectly fit to be senior politicians. What's eerie is the increase in politicians now being so elderly. Whether or not they're fit for the role strikes me as secondary to working out the reasons for the change. And simply banning them seems very unlikely to solve the actual core problem that's producing this phenomenon.

What's eerie is the increase in politicians now being so elderly

America is more elderly across the board now; median age continues to rise. I suspect if you managed to gather the appropriate statistics, you'd find there is an increase in age in most professions. Barring a few where physical capability is a requirement.

working out the reasons for the change.

Quoting myself from several years ago:

It was enlightening to read the discussion at a heavily left-wing site of Feinstein's decision to run for reelection. She's 84 years old. She's despised by socialists and moderate leftists, only slightly less than by conservatives and libertarians. Even to non-ideological Democratic partisans, she's taking up a safe-for-the-party seat that even the most cynical would like to have available for "grooming" future presidential candidates.

BUT, when they finally do replace her, they won't just get a new young senator in return for an retiring old Senator, they'll lose a senior-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Intelligence Committee, Appropriations Committee, etc. They'll be forfeiting whatever favors other senators owe her, losing the web of relationships she's spent decades building, etc.

So, the left-wing majority position appears to be that this Senator, who is cursed and despised by even her own voters, needs to stay in office for as long as modern medicine can keep her from keeling over, because that's the way all the structural incentives are set up.

These are the same incentives faced by voters for every elderly member of Congress, and they won't be fixed by merely exposing the fact of senility there. Even if that exposure had had a list of names attached, and Feinstein was on it, it wouldn't change the game theory here, it would just mean that voters would be reelecting her "handlers" as much as her.

But you're right to point out that the important thing here is the change, the increase - why wasn't this as big a problem thirty years ago? My first guess would be that it's some combination of massive polarization and growing gerrymandering. Even when partisan voters lacked any motivation to replace their own representatives from within their own parties, there would frequently be some sway in the weaker partisans and independents that forced them to accept a replacement by the other party, and then when the first party had a chance to win back control they'd naturally try to do it with new blood. I'd love to hear other theories, though.

they'll lose a senior-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Intelligence Committee, Appropriations Committee, etc. They'll be forfeiting whatever favors other senators owe her, losing the web of relationships she's spent decades building, etc.

That's the stated reason, yes. The actual reason is that replacing the senator means replacing the staff. Hundreds of people that the permanent bureaucracy likes and knows how to manage. Firing all those people kicks over the table, which they don't want. And if the permanent bureaucracy doesn't like something, it doesn't happen.

It's basically that on the Congressional list, and as I said above, really bad timing w/ Mitch, Biden, Pelosi, and Trump all in power. But, Pelosi has stepped down, Biden will be done after 2024 or his next term, and Mitch will likely be gone at worst at his next election. After that, there aren't a ton of new 70 year olds vying for power - Bernie & Warren aren't running again, and in both parties, there are 40-60 year old politicians ready to run.

I think in a century, it'll be noted this was a weird genorcratic period - maybe something about wanting older leadership after the chaos of the Recession w/ Obama at the helm will be some college students doctorate or something.

But you're right to point out that the important thing here is the change, the increase - why wasn't this as big a problem thirty years ago?

Wait, in the Senate? Did you never hear of Strom Thurmond?

The Senate is a bizarre institution, and extrapolating…anything…from an N=100 dataset is folly. Once you’re in the Senate, it takes a LOT to get you out of the Senate, as seen from this list. There’s only 2 Senators from each state, and once you’re in you immediately accumulate a huge amount of power but then also pretty much vote along party lines, and unless you do something truly wildly insanely wrong, your state party has no particular reason to kick you out.

extrapolating…anything…from an N=100 dataset is folly

So if you tossed a coin 100 times and it landed heads 98 times, you would be agnostic about whether it was biased?

Did you never hear of Strom Thurmond?

Sure. Hence "why wasn't this as big a problem", not "why wasn't this a problem". 30 years ago 6% of Congress was over 70; when Thurmond retired it was 8%; when I was goggling at Feinstein it was 18%; now it's 23%.

extrapolating…anything…from an N=100 dataset is folly

The House is a bit more data, and the secular trend in Congress as a whole seems to overwhelm low-sample-size jitter. I guess we'd expect a ton of temporal auto-correlation, though, so maybe the explanation is as simple as "we're in the period after demographics gave big opportunities to Silent Generation and Baby Boomer politicians but before senescence pushes them out"?

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