site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   14522 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.

Not only have we now pardoned even more criminals who should be serving punishments for the things they did, Trump has now given the other side incentive (and justification, no matter how flimsy) to defect further.

Which is the same thing they'd most likely do if he decided to pardon everyone except those who provably committed violence against the police.

So what? This line of argument fails twice:

  1. Trump isn't responsible for what they do, he's responsible for what he does. He deserves criticism for provoking others even if they would have acted the same anyway.

  2. Even if you discount his moral responsibility to act right, he still shouldn't do it. This pardon still has screwed everyone over by releasing criminals and further weakening the (paper thin at this point) norms of our country. Even if it's guaranteed that the left would do the same next time they get power, we are still better off if he doesn't pull the same stunt. Fewer outrageous pardons is an unalloyed good, no matter what the left chooses to do when they have the reins.

Why is it always my tribe that has to unilaterally disarm?

  1. It's not, I demand the exact same thing of both sides. But I'm not willing for either side to wait until the other side starts, because then nothing will ever happen.

  2. Even if it were, that would still be better than having all out breaking of norms on both sides. Better for you as well as for them, in fact. Because again, this shit hurts everyone.

  3. Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.

Because a good person acts right regardless of what others do. You can't control their behavior, only your own.

Trump refused to pardon the J6ers back when it would have been most effective- the day before leaving office.
He did not do that.

Biden could have encouraged prosecution of BLMers back when it would have been most effective- the day after taking office.
He did not do that.

You claim "both sides never even tried for mutual disarmament", but Reds did offer that opportunity, from January 21st, 2021 through January 20, 2025, for Blues to dedicate themselves to prosecuting [their own] rioters and thus disavow their approval and encouragement of burning, looting, and murdering as valid political strategy.

At what point do the demands for rigor become isolated?

In practice, it’s a demand made of my side and not the other, despite most of the actual tyranny coming from the other.

Make a Ta’if agreement.

You say that, but I don't see you down thread tearing your hair out about Fauci and Milley, and at least one of them is definitely a criminal whose actions had much worse effects on society than any j6er.

Nor do you see me defending Biden's pardon of Fauci. I think it is equally ridiculous and damaging to society. Furthermore, who exactly would I be arguing against? When I saw that subthread everyone was in agreement that it was bad.

I have no idea who Milley is, so I can't offer an opinion there. But you're searching for an inconsistency which simply isn't there. Not commenting on something isn't some kind of tacit agreement with it.

Maybe the inconsistency was just the time you had free the other day vs now, but there is definitely an inconsistency man. You have a dozen plus posts in this thread vs zero in that one! I do apologise if you are trying to be centrist, but centrism on a tilted game board promotes the status quo. And the status quo these past few years has meant political persecution for one side. Most of the Jan 6ers would never have been imprisoned without it.

Well yeah, today I have people blowing up my inbox by replying to my comments. That by itself means I'm going to be a lot more active. Disagreement causes engagement as people argue with each other, agreement is more quiet by nature.

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