site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   36571 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here's to hoping that the next four years do indeed make America great again, again. And we manage to dredge some unity and goodwill out of our desiccated corpse.

For all that we complain, I always ask people: if not the United States, where would you go? And where would you invest? Whatever my family and friends say, they're still investing in American securities. They're mostly still working in the USA. The opportunity here in most fields is unrivaled.

And to paraphrase Curtis Yarvin, I'll bet you 50$ that if you look around your neighborhood, you'll notice 0 changes over the next 4 years attributable to Donald Trump.

Here's to hoping that the next four years do indeed make America great again, again.

Hope springs eternal!

if not the United States, where would you go?

Ulaanbataar. The steppe nomads will rise again!

And we manage to dredge some unity and goodwill out of our desiccated corpse.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Trump is a superlative divider.

if not the United States, where would you go

The traditional answer is Canada, but that's looking less safe of late :v

One of the (many) reasons I despise Trumpism is that it embraces everything sordid and distasteful about the United States and rejects much of what makes it genuinely exceptional. It looks backwards to a worse time for its idea of "greatness" and praises thuggishness.

Simply put, Trump makes it very hard to be patriotic. (It doesn't help that his supporters have spent much of the last eight years saying I and people like me are not merely opponents but enemies).

I'll bet you 50$ that if you look around your neighborhood, you'll notice 0 changes over the next 4 years attributable to Donald Trump.

Unfortunately, my circle of concern is broader than just the physical confines of my neighborhood. I have a number of friends and relatives who (quite rationally) expect Trump to make their lives worse over the next four years. I personally expect that if Trump follows through with the economic and taxation policies he has touted, I will be materially worse off than the alternative.

it embraces everything sordid and distasteful about the United States and rejects much of what makes it genuinely exceptional.

And what would those things be exactly?

Insecurity, uncritical jingoism, contempt for the poor and the weak, proud ignorance, prioritizing the privileges of the elite over the well-being and rights of ordinary people, the South, brutality against the least members of society masquerading as "law and order", Christian nationalism...

jingoism i can see. But contempt for the poor? Prioritizing the privileges of the elite? Are we watching the same movie?

To me it seems that much of the wailing and gnashing of teeth surrounding Trump is coming from the complete opposite direction. People being pissed about him paying far too much attention to "the poor" and "the ordinary" when he ought to be defering to the "experts" and the "elite" as a good politician ought to.

The prevailing attitude seems to be one of; get a load of this at this buffoon, doing the things he said he was going to do.
...

I also note that you only listed the things you considered "sorid" and did not include anything you considered "exceptional". That is unless it was your intention to suggest that the US is exceptional in its soridness.

Only good thing I've been hearing from Trump's mouth are his continued support of legal immigration. That and his culture war salvos against DEI etc.

Looking at just the effects of the executive orders Trump has made so far:

  1. Direction to State Department to not recognize trans gender identities. Unclear exactly what this means in practice, but this will likely make it difficult or impossible for many trans people to get/renew passports. I know many trans people renewed their passports early expecting this (and the Biden State Department literally worked overtime to fulfill those requests before January 20th).

  2. Less serious, but Return to In-Person Work at best inconveniences many government workers. The intention is almost certainly to encourage federal workers to quit (just like tech company RTO policies are interpreted as stealth layoffs).

Those are the only two that I see that have immediate impact on the lives of people I know, but many of the others will likely lead to noticeable effects.

I'm honestly surprised that Republican platform isn't 100% telework for government employees (with the caveat that they cannot be within 15 miles of Washington DC and must accept lower locality pay) it would be a much more politically palatable way to decentralize the government and shift it into more red states and reduce power within a very blue stronghold.

Platforms are not, generally, perfectly rational technocracy.

Return to In-Person Work at best inconveniences many government workers. The intention is almost certainly to encourage federal workers to quit (just like tech company RTO policies are interpreted as stealth layoffs).

It will be quite the inconvenience to some and drive separations. There are multiple different types of situations. There are the folks who live right around the corner from the office, but they only go in one day a week or are even on full remote for whatever reason. Those folks will be inconvenienced, but they'll just do it; only a very few will actually leave. Other folks live halfway across the country from their agency's official locations. Perhaps the agency has other interests in that area, but hasn't set up an official office building, because they only want a small number of folks there. I've heard of some people whose remote work was literally a retention deal - their spouse got a job elsewhere, and they could do their job perfectly fine remotely, so they moved halfway across the country. This could basically force them to decide who is going to have to quit which job and whether they want to pick up and move again. Perhaps still an 'inconvenience', but a pretty significant one. The people who are likely to actually leave are these folks, and it's unclear to me which strata that's going to primarily affect.

One friend of ours doesn't work for the gov't, and she's not remote; she's hybrid. She was telling us about her situation, and it's actually dumb for her to have to go in to work, because she's in a global role, and the vast vast majority of the people she works with on a regular basis aren't local anyway. She commutes in to work, time that, let's be honest, she would normally spend working on the days that she stays home, just to sit in her closed office at work and be on Teams meetings with people from different countries all day. Some of her coworkers are remote, and yeah, they'd probably just drive those folks off to different companies if they said, "Sure, we told you that you could be remote, so you bought a house and set up roots and stuff, but now we're going to demand that you move halfway across the country so that you can sit in Teams meetings all day from here instead of there."

It will be quite the inconvenience to some and drive separations.

If you happen to by trying to drastically reduce the size of an organization, voluntary separations are actually pretty great...

Correct, if that is your only terminal value, a la Vance's "fire everyone with an odd/even SSN" approach. Any selection/self-selection process will have its own mix of results. For example, the odd/even SSNs will be totally random, up and down the chain. Versus, for the classic example, if you lower everyone's salary, then you're selecting out the people who have better alternatives and could perhaps be more productive elsewhere, leaving yourself with probably the lower-quality folks. Versus the Schedule F approach, which targeted higher-level, policy-making positions. Versus the Musk-at-Twitter approach, where he just personally made decisions based on code commits, likely selecting on some combination of gross code output and a subjective quality/value of code assessment. Versus, say, firing people based on recent performance ratings, which mostly just lets management get rid of the people they already didn't like. Every method has its own results.

Going after remote work is going to merely inconvenience the folks who live nearby but drive disproportionate separations from those who live far away for various reasons. As @atelier points out, one might have a competing terminal value that would drive someone to want almost the opposite of this policy, but a lot depends on what your terminal values look like. My guess is that, unlike the Schedule F approach or atelier's idea, this is likely to mostly impact lower-level folks who weren't "in the club" of the top-level policy-making folks. Those folks are mostly all located pretty close, because 1) until COVID, they had to be, and 2) they're likely older and further in their career (thus higher level management) and had already established roots there and likely had less incentive to move in the last few years. This is likely to chip away at the raw numbers, but have very little impact on the power bases of the deep state.

This is likely to chip away at the raw numbers, but have very little impact on the power bases of the deep state.

Probably true -- I think the DS almost definitionally lives in & around DC.

Draining the swamp will need to be approached more directly -- but everyone who quits over RTO will be someone you don't need to pay anymore (nor severance probably, tho it depends on the contract I guess), which is a step in the right direction budget-wise.

My limited understanding of gov't budgeting is that they don't have money earmarked for personnel. I.e., there is not some pot that you can 'pull back' if they have fewer salaries to pay. (I've heard about separate head count caps, but I think those operate independently of the budget figures.) Congress attaches money to funding purposes (i.e., "Do this thing"). So unless Congress is making changes to their appropriations, they'll still get that same pot of money, and they'll still spend it... on, I guess, who knows what? Contractors, consulting, other contracts/grants, hell, they'll spend it on DEI programs if there is any gap in the language trying to shut that down. One thing I've heard from economists who analyze gov't spending is that the number one priority of those folks is spending their money, so they always have a pile of things backburnered and ready to go if they run into a surprise surplus of funds. I'm pretty skeptical that edging out a few remote workers is likely to have a remotely sizable effect on expenditures. Probably would only matter to the extent that those remote workers are actually some sort of bottleneck on funds getting out to whatever they're being spent on (and this is highly unlikely for the real big ticket items like, e.g., entitlements). In fact, to the extent that one thinks they'll be more "productive" if they're in the office in-person, the thing they're probably going to be more "productive" at is spending all their money.

So, my guess is that when we retrospectively look back on the budgetary impacts, it'll have a very small impact on salaries paid, approximately no impact on total federal expenditures, and the difference will be thrown at more and more marginal things. The long play here is convincing Congress that "look at all these marginal things that we're spending money on" and convincing them to draw back on subsequent appropriations.

One thing I've heard from economists who analyze gov't spending is that the number one priority of those folks is spending their money

That is definitely true; I've been one of those contractors. But in the context of Elon and his DOGE the (optimistic) assumption would be that those stable budgets are out the window next fiscal, whether they are spent or not.

Involving Congress would certainly be the "conventional" play (to the extent that reducing federal expenditures can ever be called "conventional"), but who knows what these guys will dream up.

Unclear exactly what this means in practice, but this will likely make it difficult or impossible for many trans people to get/renew passports.

How? I don't see how it prevents you from getting a passport that states your biological sex.

As for other things that it means in practice, a few things that are mentioned in summaries (though I haven't looked at the EO itself so I'm not sure if it's listed there), are no males in female prisons, and not allowing to use anti-discrimination-against-women laws and regs to be construed as anti-discrimination-against-trans. Will probably also have impact on sports, though I haven't seen it mentioned explicitly.

How? I don't see how it prevents you from getting a passport that states your biological sex.

Trans (or intersex) people may not have or be able to acquire identity documents that state their "biological sex". And if they do, photo IDs showing a mismatch between the sex marker on the ID and the gender presentation in the photo (or in person) are at risk of being rejected as valid ID.

The other effects you list also have some pretty awful consequences, but I don't know anyone directly affected by them, while I do know people who failed to renew their passport in time and will be left without one, and therefore be unable to leave the country, at some point in the next 4 years.

I do know people who failed to renew their passport in time and will be left without one, and therefore be unable to leave the country, at some point in the next 4 years.

When you apply for a passport, you submit a current picture, which will match their current appearance. I don't think I've ever had a border guard read down to the M/F line on my passport -- they look at the picture; sometimes check the stamps.

If one does, the person in question will just need to say "I had a sex change operation" in the local language -- similar to what I would do if I dyed my hair or something. There is no practical problem; it is ideological.

Trans (or intersex) people may not have or be able to acquire identity documents that state their "biological sex".

I suppose if you already have an altered birth certificate, that poses an interesting question as to what will happen, but I don't know how you default that to "won't be able to get a passport".

Also why the quote marks? You have some novel theory on human biology? And why would intersex people have trouble with their documents?

The other effects you list also have some pretty awful consequences

How are they more awful than the consequences of keeping the old policies?

I always ask people: if not the United States, where would you go?

I've long been answering that question for people, in two different senses.

In one sense, my answer would be ideally that Alaska becomes it's own independent country — I seriously pissed off my 4th grade teacher for writing a "social studies" report in support of the Alaska Independence Party — and failing that, that Russia takes us back.

In the other sense, I've given my list before, starting, in order of preference, with Liechtenstein, then Monaco, and ending with Eswatini. And as always, for why I haven't already moved to one of those places, it's because none of them will take be; as a schizophrenic welfare parasite, no country on Earth will let me legally immigrate, and so I'm stuck here in the US whether I like it or not.

Isn’t Alaskan independence relatively mainstream and normal?

Isn’t Alaskan independence relatively mainstream and normal?

Depends on what you mean by "relatively mainstream." In that the AIP exists, has about 2% of the state's population as memebers, and is one of the few third parties to have ever (briefly) controlled a state governor's seat, sure (though it hasn't really been the same since Vogler was murdered).

But there's still quite a lot of opposition; Mrs. Johnson's was on the basis that "secession is secession," that any and all attempts to leave the US are, morally speaking, the same thing, and thus support for Alaskan Independence is also necessarily equal support for the Confederacy, and thus slavery, and therefore an unacceptable opinion for anyone to hold in her classroom.

"oh lordy we need goodwill and unity!" I cry, before returning to making snippy comments about my outgroup. How Democratic.

The context of the Yarvin quote is that democracies are weak and feckless so we convert to a dictatorship, not that Trump is a particularly ineffectual president. My point was that presidential elections probably won't affect any of us all that much. I would, and have, made the same point about democratic administrations. Is that what you were referring to?

Did you mean to post this in reply to someone else? I didn't say anything about Yarvin or Trump, I was talking about the way you bemoaned our lack of unity in the midst of your sniping at Trump and his supporters. It seems very gauche to me, but I am used to it courtesy of the former administration.

The post you are responding to is a line of argument @Chrisprattalpharaptr has been advancing, consistently, for some years now: the culture war is not and should not be an existential conflict, and keeping this in mind is to everyone's benefit. Further, his comment seems mostly aimed at progressive catastrophizing. It seems to me that he is modelling a willingness to accept a loss, shrug, and move on with one's life.

I disagree with CPAR on a great many things. I even somewhat disagree with this particular idea that the Culture War can be shrugged off, though the argument seems a reasonable one to me. I can say that of the people making snippy comments about their outgroup, he certainly would not make my personal top twenty.

Is this level of hostility really warranted?

No, it's for you. I'm confused what you see as sniping at Trump supporters. Make America great again, again?

Yeah chum, exactly that. Please don't pretend you sincerely believed Trump made America great in 2016 or that he is going to do so this time. It was bantz.

I love the United States! We're the fucking best. Almost everywhere else sucks by comparison and even the places that are pretty good are on such a small scale that they're more akin to nice states than major nations. Nonetheless, being the best doesn't ensure that there isn't just a secular decline in quality of life across the world, which is what I think would happen if the Pax Americana recedes. To that end, I hope we do reassert our authority with a Monroe Doctrine style of foreign policy.

And to paraphrase Curtis Yarvin, I'll bet you 50$ that if you look around your neighborhood, you'll notice 0 changes over the next 4 years attributable to Donald Trump.

We could talk about deportations, but on a small scale, I do credit Trump for appointing Supreme Court justices that sided with Grants Pass. Cities not being able to stop bums from camping in parks really would be a pretty terrible outcome that would be immediately obvious to everyone involved. They may or may not realize what the cause of that effect is, but pretty much everyone would notice bums camping in parks freely.

I suppose Australia counts as a 'nice state' from this perspective? I certainly like living here, more than I did in parts of the US.

Australia is probably just about the only one that cracks into "true nation" range that I would put on par with the United States for quality of life. Being a gigantic island certainly helps it feel more like a real nation than a place like The Netherlands (which I adore, for what it's worth), even if the population is still in the range of being a large state.

We're about Texas sized, I think. The way I think of it is less that we're the size of a state and more that the biggest US states are the size of small countries.

Even then I'm sometimes shocked at the size of some countries. I once roomed with a Czech and was shocked to realise that his entire country was smaller than an Australian state capital.

Yeah, that's fair.

In any case, I only have a couple weeks in Australia, but I had a great time. It's the only country I've been to that had the visually obvious size and wealth that I associate with the United States. Really such an interesting thing of its own that it's hard to really group with other countries meaningfully. I suppose Canada has a bunch of similar traits, but sharing the continent still makes it feel less singular. Americans also tend to underestimate just how far it is to get to Australia - people know it's far, but a 16-hour flight from LA still shocks the senses. To be honest, I didn't even think about it in the post above - the places I had in mind were European countries, Japan, Korea, and South America.

I always ask people: if not the United States, where would you go? And where would you invest?

Unless you tethered by your job, live elsewhere where it's cheap but always invest in 'Big Tech'. Nothing beats tech as far as returns are concerned or Bay Area real estate. But otherwise, America is too expensive and you can save tons of money living aboard and than using the saved $ to invest in FAAMNG.

Unless you tethered by your job

What about friends? Family? Your bond to the land?

I can never understand this mindset of just being freely floating without any ties besides where you work...

You might even call such people "rootless cosmopolitans" or something similar

consider the possibility that an opinion doesn't have to apply to everyone or all circumstances

Never!!!! I am a true Kantian.

Sure but why would a U.S. company hire you to telecommute from Europe for U.S. wages? Why not just hire a European for European wages?

The U.S. is downright cheap compared to other countries when you factor in the wage gap.

To put things in perspective, if you earn 68,877 euros, you are 95th percentile in France. 99th percentile is 115,313 euros. You will also pay half of it in taxes. Europe is much poorer than Americans think.

consider that someone may not be working, such as retired, and wants to save money by moving somewhere cheap. expat communities are a thing

yeah, if you making solid 6 figures in Bay Area tech, then it's worth it to stay put.

consider that someone may not be working, such as retired, and wants to save money by moving somewhere cheap.

Why? Why is this something that the employer should consider?

i said retired. I thought there was no ambiguity

I'll bet you 50$ that if you look around your neighborhood, you'll notice 0 changes over the next 4 years attributable to Donald Trump.

I'll take that bet, but only if "Vance/Desantis 2028" yard signs and flags count as a change, since I think that would easily be 'attributable' to Donald Trump. As far as material changes, go, I have a few Hispanic neighbors, its entirely possible some of the are here illegally, so if they get removed and housing prices in the neighborhood go down due to fewer migrants in the South Florida area generally that can probably be attributed to Trump as well.

Note: I like my neighbors so I'm not going to be the one calling ICE.

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