site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   28334 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 6, 2025

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

and yet it could easily happen.

No it can't. The military would refuse Trump's orders. Then Trump would be impeached, convicted, removed, and jailed.

While I agree that action against Canada is laughable...that isn’t why.

When has the GOP actually sanctioned Trump for anything? The closest they got was when his supporters were literally occupying their offices, but all’s well that ends well, and there was more hay to be made complaining about Democrat show trials.

If Trump pulled something like this—and he won’t—there’s your model. Deny that he did it. Deny that he said anything about it. Deny that it was illegal at all. Also, they totally deserved it.

I mean, if you think the Republicans are going to happily bow down and let Trump invade Canada, you might need to log off and talk to some actual Republicans. They are not evil cartoon monsters with horns. They are real people who mostly want what's best for the world (just like Democrats do).

Trump can barely even cajole the party into doing basic things that he wants, like electing a Speaker of the House. They're not going to let him invade Canada.

No, I’m not saying they’d let him do it. I’m saying they wouldn’t punish him for having done it.

For what it’s worth, my actual Republican Senator is Ted Cruz, whose tolerance for Trump is infamous. Ironically, he’s also Canadian…

Sorry. I shouldn’t have let myself get carried away on conditionals. We agree that Trump taking any military action against Canada is outrageously unlikely.

Defense contractors in DFW(especially in, as I suspect, the further suburbs of DFW) know lots of republicans, and the constitution explicitly exempts absorbing parts of Canada from the normal congressional process.

Honestly, if we invaded Canada, I wouldn't be surprised if Congress was extremely leery about granting them statehood and they remained a territory for some time.

Which would be a very imperial move, vibes-wise.

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become George I.

It took all of fifty years after American Independence before we tried that the first time around.

Assuming there was a strong party or ethnicity within Canada that was pro-Union, it would look pretty similar to reconstruction.

I think you're confusing the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation.

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