site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   30111 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 12, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As an aside, it will never cease to amaze me that some states require vehicle safety inspections. Coming from a state that never requires any inspections ever, it’s completely jarring to me that people find such an intrusive policy not only normal, but actually a positive good.

It's not hard to come up with support for a minimal version -- every mechanic worth their salt has had some customer come in with a car where the brake pads have dissolved, the tires are bald, and the frame is about to fold in half, and the customer decides that they'll just drive it home. There's a libertarian argument that these problems solve themselves, and it's not wrong, but no few of these people end up taking out innocents with them. There's a pragmatic argument that the costs are huge and the benefits small, and it's probably right, but it's an ugly one to make.

The trouble's that even accepting that minimal version, it quickly turns from a 'is this car remotely safe' into a 'does someone who only buys new cars like how this one looks', or even a 'how do we get a guaranteed easy job for a handful of schmucks who can't be trusted with a wrench'? And even people who do recognize how bad the ugly versions of these programs get don't care that much about them, so it's a hard political problem.

Bold of you to think those of us stuck with such thing actually view it as a positive or good.

At least, that's my take on it. I view them as less than worthless and more an annoying road-tax that I have to pay so often(on top of getting my windshield replaced, again) and a punishment for being a good little citizen that criminals just skirt on by without a care.

Assuming that a critical mass of residents in an inspection state hated inspections, they'd get rid of it. There's at least some people who support inspections or it wouldn't exist.

Have any states gone from an inspection regime to a non-inspection regime?

Oklahoma axed them some time back: https://oksenate.gov/press-releases/mandatory-vehicle-inspections-abolished-repeal-will-save-oklahomans-12-million

Texas voted to phase them out, but hasn't abolished them yet.

https://www.nashville.gov/departments/health/environmental-health/vehicle-inspection

Metro Nashville (TN) abolished emissions inspections in 2022.

I lived there and suffered through those for many years. There was MUCH rejoicing when it went away.

The steelman: cars are dangerous heavy machinery and neglect of maintenance causes a significant amount of death and destruction. Public safety is substantially served by requiring cars be kept in good order. Just like how it's reasonable that cars be required to have working head and tail lights, its reasonable to require they have working brakes and suspension, and checking those requires a mechanical inspection.

Oh, I get the argument for it, but I have a similar instinctual response as I would toward a law requiring annual housing inspections or mandating preemptive parenting classes before couples are allowed to have children. It just seems weirdly invasive.

Driving already requires a license, although I’m not sure if inspections specifically do anything.

I mean, at the end of the day, operating a motor vehicle on public roads paid for via taxation is a privilege, not a right. You can drive a car in any condition on your own private property.

I’m not arguing; I’m just conveying my impression from a state with fewer restrictions and more freedom.

It’s starting to feel like talking about freedom of speech with Europeans. You make the merest mention that you appreciate America’s freedom of speech, and they start tripping over themselves to tell you why their much more restrictive version is actually better and more socially responsible. I get that the states that require vehicle inspections have their reasons. I just find the requirements bizarre, intrusive, and off-putting. No amount of argument is going to change my mind, as mine is an instinctive and emotional response, not a carefully-thought through rational one.

No amount of argument is going to change my mind, as mine is an instinctive and emotional response, not a carefully-thought through rational one.

In other words, it's an argument from dignity (liberal) against an argument for safety (traditionalist-progressive).

That’s it precisely. Regular vehicle checks seem freedom-impinging, which is bad enough on its own. To make matters worse, they also seem unnecessary, which therefore also makes them degrading.

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