site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28089 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

  1. Your first mistake is using WaPo. That particular story has had to been corrected about a million times approximately. See https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/washington-post-quietly-updates-hunter-biden-story-after-devon-archer-testimony/

Contra your statement, Devon Archer testified Biden was there the entire dinner. The oligarch thanked Hunter for making the introduction afterwards. Archer could go to jail if proven to lie.

  1. The IRS wanted to investigate why Valerie Biden — Joe’s sister — received what appears to be a large sum from Hunter.

  2. No your standard is bullshit. The age of the allegation doesn’t matter. The only question is did participate in a bribery scheme. You can’t say the American people knew these facts and voted for it anyhow when (1) they didn’t know all of the facts and (2) the literal deep state colluded with Biden to unjustly and inaccurately label the info misinformation. If Joe participated in a bribery scheme, he cannot be president. This is basic stuff. Demanding absurd specifics (ie that Joe specifically directed money) is absurd. All that matters is that he knowingly participated.

Archer could go to jail if proven to lie

Devon Archer is going to jail anyway for trying to bilk an Indian tribe out of $60 million in an unrelated scam. If he is going to be the Republican's star witness at the impeachment trial, he is going to be testifying in an orange jumpsuit and the first question on cross is going to be "Has Trump promised you a pardon in exchange for this testimony?"

FWIW, I think Archer is mostly telling the truth. Joe Biden has gone above and beyond in support of Hunter (and James) Biden's sleazy-but-legal schemes since back when he was Senator for MBNA, and putting on a dog-and-pony show for the executives of a company which puts Hunter on the board would be SOP for him.

No no it doesn’t. First we aren’t limited to the statute’s definition. But the statute even states it can be directly or indirectly. What does indirectly mean? Well presumably if Joe knows Burisma is going to pay Hunter a bunch of money if Joe can deliver getting Shokin fired and Joe contrary to policy gets Shokin fired that seems to fit indirectly.

I simply don’t believe that.

I think it’s politically effective if you can establish:

  1. Burisma wanted Hunter to get Joe to fire Shokin.

  2. Policy at the time was not to fire Shokin.

  3. Joe went against policy and got Shokin fired.

  4. Burisma paid Hunter millions of dollars for services rendered.

You don’t need a video recording. It is obvious to everyone if you can establish those facts exactly what happened.

Of course, you want an impossible standard of proof. That’s absurd.

This post is spot on and needs to be promoted. If all 4 of these points were established, then Biden would be sunk. The Republicans' problem is that

  • although (1) is facially plausible, there are plenty of people willing to deny it publicly, and the best evidence is an anonymous FBI informant passing on hearsay from Zlochevsky that dated from long after Zlochevsky had ceased to control Burisma
  • the evidence on (2) is too complicated for the man in the street to understand - the only people who can make sense of it are rabid partisans who only listen to one side of the story

  1. If there is a recording, that might solve 1.

  2. If they can find more state department emails that Biden went rogue, that helps with 2.

If I was in the mob, I’d want you on my jury.

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