site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8516 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 13, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just had a conversation about this with someone a few days ago. I was saying that this event is what killed Starbucks as a brand. People used to actually go into Starbucks, and that rule was completely reasonable. Now, it's gross and full of homeless people. The bathrooms are disgusting. Their drinks are too expensive and not good enough to justify the cost. People used to like to go into Starbucks and hang out and read or study. A bunch of places around me that do enforce these rules opened up, including no dogs except service dogs, and they are always packed. At this point, I think it's too little and too late. I don't think they can get back to what they were before.

I've always hated the times when I rolled into a Starbucks and it's packed full of homeless people, such that I have to do a 360 and find another place.

The only thing worse is when I entered a Starbucks and it appeared hobo-free, so I ended up joining the queue and buying a Starbucks drink.

It's funny seeing the civil war in /r/starbucksbaristas, between those who are relieved their stores will now be hopefully, finally free of hobos harassing and threatening them and their customers, and those who insist that letting Persons of Unhousedness hang out in your store and giving them free drinks is Doing the Bare Minimum in Being a Decent Human Being. Very Decent and generous indeed, to voluntell your co-workers who you've never met in meatspace to volunteer your employer's resources to satiate your sanctimony and moral busybodying.

I have seen QT employees explaining that nonthreatening hobos who stay out of the way are sometimes given free drinks in exchange for keeping the, uh, worse crowd of homeless away. This is probably not what those baristas are advocating, but it is a reasonable case for giving out free stuff.

I’d question how well that actually works. The thing I suspect is that much like anything else feeding homeless people would invite more homeless people as word gets around that this particular QT gives out free food.

Hobos can fight each other in a way respectable citizens cannot.

That's hilarious. It's like paying protection money.

The decline of rome in barista form lmao

To nitpick, it's 180, not 360.

It's a 4chan meme.

To nitpick, it's somethingawful, not a 4chan meme.

Early 4chan had a good overlap with somethingawful before SA turned into a pinko-sj hellhole.

Gentlemen.

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