site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34093 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 2024

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.

Galt's Gulch in the novel required violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's not physically possible. And anyway state capacity is too great for it even ignoring the physical impossibilities.

You can't seriously be arguing that state capacity is increasing at the moment.

Why not? State capacity is absolutely enormous at the moment, and it's certainly not getting smaller. Yes, a lot of people are getting away with a lot of crimes, but that's only because those in charge see no advantage to turning the state on them. A Galt's Gulch would disappear faster than you could say "David Koresh".

I'm just going to point at that infamous case of the San Francisco bridge where the suicide nets cost more than the bridge itself. You can't be arguing that state capacity is high when great projects, even ones the elite actually wants are no longer even possible. They really want to produce artillery shells right about now and are completely failing to do so.

Your next move is probably to argue that corruption and embezzlement is what the elite's revealed preference, but that's stretching the concept of state capacity to its limits.

Ask yourself really, if tomorrow China entered a total war with the US, could the elites turn the civilization they have corrupted and enshittified to the max back into a winning industrial powerhouse in a reasonable amount of time? That's what state capacity would be, and I don't think they have what it takes to even convince people to fight that war.

The corrupt bureaucrats in the Ayn Rand novel were an example of low state capacity, not high. That we are closer to them is not a mark of the power of the State, but of its weakness. Joe Biden is not FDR.

They really want to produce artillery shells right about now and are completely failing to do so.

If I do not see tangible and obvious negative consequences that elites suffer due to failing to produce artillery shells, I'd assume it's not "they really want to and are failing", I'd assume "they don't need to and thus don't want to".

I do not think the elite care much about the cost of suicide nets or whether artillery shells for some second-world war are produced.

The corrupt bureaucrats in the Ayn Rand novel were an example of low state capacity, not high.

Yes. But in our world the US has high state capacity. If you build a ghost gun, the state's panopticon finds you and prosecutes you. Something like Galt's Gulch could never be hidden for long, and when it was found it would easily be destroyed.

Why not? Or perhaps just holding steady? Or, at the very least, if decreasing, then decreasing very slowly, even as the "capacities" of private individuals are also shrinking, perhaps even faster.

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