site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27708 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 23, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does this remind you of anyone?

I am glad to hear the Governor call it desert -- it is desert -- it is pretty good desert.

It is good to be back again in Nevada and get a chance to see things again. It seems to me they look a lot better than they did a few years ago and as you know, your Government in Washington knows that this State is on the map which is something. Some administrations didn't know it was on the map. And, I have been very glad that your State administration, from your Governor down, work so well with all of us on the other side of the continent. We have had real cooperation from the State Government. We have not had any dissention or cross words, and when all of us decided things had to be done, they have been done.

You people know I am water conscious -- although not a strict prohibitionist --

When I was down on the Ohio River the other day I told them I would catch bigger fish than grew in Ohio, though I don't think I will get anything that tastes better to eat than Nevada trout -- the Senator gave me some Nevada trout for lunch -- it was delicious.

It is good to see you all and I hope to get back here again some day. I hope some day to come in an automobile and stay longer and get to know you better.

It is good to see you.

I elided the header, which specified that these were "INFORMAL REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT, From the Rear Platform of his Special Train" spoken on July 13, 1938. Consider these remarks, spoken by the most aggressive Democrat in history. Compare them to the informal, off-the-cuff manner of our previous President, Donald Trump. Sure, the occasional choice of words is unfamiliar. But the rest is all there: glittering generalities. Praise for those on board. Rambling anecdotes. All these ghostly remnants of what must, at the time, have been raw charisma.

People like to feel listened to. They like to feel part of a conversation, and be reminded that the person is a real human rather than an unfeeling automaton. The kind of performance which successfully conveys that humanity doesn't always translate so well to a recording or especially a transcript. In the 30s, FDR was winning over the populace with informal remarks and fireside chats. Today, a politician can still cultivate that relationship with his base. But every casual remark is a risk. It will be carefully catalogued, preserved in cheap and ubiquitous recordings, and mined for any advantage. When a detractor watches a 15-second clip on evening TV, there is no suspension of disbelief. None of the casualness with which we'd listen in person. It's not just "two screens." It's one team watching a screen, and one holding a conversation.

I remember reading some accounts that Bill Clinton had an uncanny level of personal charisma that people who hadn't met him just didn't get. I think it's probably a more general quality of today's rigorously competitive political world. Maybe that's why politicians so often come off as incompetent or fake, that they're selected so strongly for personal charisma it leaves no room for other qualities.

Years ago, my uncle met Clinton very briefly and later remarked that Clinton had this incredible power to make you believe that he really cared about you, yes you, personally, even if you were just one person in a queue of hundreds taking turns to shake his hand.

So he's the real life Carrot Ironfoundersson.

Having a very quick hunt for similar anecdotes, I found one of Gillian Anderson who was convinced on the basis of a 30-second interaction that she would get a message from him the next day to meet again.

She didn't.

Not to be crass, but Anderson is way more attractive than Monica Lewinsky. No accounting for taste, old Bill.

His loss.

Having met Bill Clinton in a random and non-political situation, I can say that this is spot on. Guy was on the way to Chelsea’s bday party or something and I remain convinced that he would have preferred to stand there chatting with me instead.

In my experience most high-level US politicians have an unreal level of charm in person that is almost impossible to fully describe unless you've experienced it firsthand. I've met several politicians who I intensely disliked from afar, only to find myself instantly charmed by them in person. Never met Clinton, but he probably takes this to another level.

Also my experience. Even Newt Gingrich, possibly one of the least charismatic politicians I can readily think of, was quite a bit more charming than the average Joe when meeting him in person.

My favorite Clinton anecdote is that Newt Gingrich needed a chaperone to meet with Clinton because every time he went in alone he got charmed and gave Clinton whatever he asked for.

Bill Clinton (né William Jefferson Blythe III) might not have fallen too far from the tree. His biological father was a traveling salesman who married Bill's mother while still legally married to his 4th wife. He died in a car wreck before Bill was born. I wonder if we'll find the charisma gene?

My favorite Clinton anecdote is from TNR or maybe the New Yorker a while back. Doctor said, “Bill Clinton loves to talk; a friend of mine once got chance to meet him when they were both in the locker room of a racquetball club in Manhattan, and enjoyed the first hour of the conversation, but ended up faking a phone call from his wife as an excuse to prevent the chat from entering hour three.”

I suspect the surviving Bush and Obama might both do the same thing—just imagine being the top 0.001% for ambition and extroversion, with decades of life left, and every single job in America would be an embarrassing step down.

I suggest getting serially married men and successful salesmen together and giving them all dna tests.

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