site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   25713 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Drive-by tangent.

The University presidents were either woefully unskilled or badly coached on how to handle hostile questions like this. They gave repetitive, legalistic non-answers and declined ...

Repetitive, legalistic non-answers are also what professional civil-servants give in front of such committees too, even though it's their day job. It's probably the least-worst tactic given the situation, and it prevents you getting actually skewered.

Yes this seems correct. There is no upside and considerable downside risk in answering in any other way. Similarly one should not talk to police beyond the absolute minimum legally required.

I disagree. These hearings play to the public. Having a cogent answer and a cooperative demeanor could be helpful. There is of course increased downside risk as well, but I think someone skilled could sway public opinion in their favor even in the face of hostile questioning, or at least limit the downside risk of public outrage.

Very little on C-Span makes news that people pay attention too. Taking the risk usually pays off.

Repetitive, legalistic non-answers are also what professional civil-servants give in front of such committees too, even though it's their day job

Congress could hold someone in contempt right?

That's why you have to show up and play the game. "Go fuck yourself" is not a sufficiently legalistic non-answer.

BTW: A lot has happened since this original thread and it's impressive how badly this tactic went for these people. I state again however: this is the standard way to behave in front of such committees. Or at least it is here in Australia.

For correctly stating that the answer depends on the context or other actions but this isn't inherently forbidden by school policy? I don't suppose so. I don't think anyone is getting convicted for merely stating legalistic technically true answers.

Yes but it's toothless unless the DOJ takes up the contempt charge for them.

Yes, people often wonder how bureaucrats who are otherwise quite charismatic and charming behave like robots at public hearings or with politicians in general, but they’re coached to do so by others in the permanent bureaucracy. The worst thing in that position is for a politician to care, one way or another, a great deal about you personally. It means scrutiny, it means attention from the opposition, it makes your life and that of your coworkers more difficult. So the best thing is to appear as much the gray suit as possible, so they hopefully forget you. If you argue forcefully back then, well, you’ve become a politician.

I deeply regret the Republicans didn’t win the Senate in 2022. Rand Paul would’ve made (justly imo) Fauci’s life a living hell.

How so? He could have just retired slightly sooner, still quite rich and still doing the rounds on news/talk shows answering tough questions like "how does it feel to have saved eleventy-trillion lives with Science(tm)?" Rand Paul constantly grilling him would barely even be reported on, let alone actually affect his life.

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