site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   19428 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 27, 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.

If it's just two people having an argument, no arguments matter. It doesn't matter who's correct unless one of them can use their correctness to convince the other, which is a strategy easily defeated by refusing to be convinced.

That is fascinating, because I was honestly about to make the same argument in the opposite direction: that regardless of how far orders could actually be enforced in a case of open resistance, people mostly obey when they believe the other person has a legitimate authority to give the orders. A husband's being able to say "Come on, I'm happy to support you because I love you, but I sweated for this money while you were baking cookies with the kids, it is the product of my labor and skill" - well, that's a somewhat psychologically compelling way to claim authority over the family funds. And "I gave you this material thing, now you owe me something back" is pretty universally effective as a coercion tactic, so much so that street scammers use it on tourists all the time.

Respecting my friend's example, I was only imagining that it illustrated how having an independent income can ensure your children get what they need even if your husband is a skinflint - I'm pretty well up in modern PMC/HR-type attitudes, but it never occurred to me that her predicament was textbook financial abuse or that she should call him out on it, so it's really interesting that you find it obviously unacceptable. Knowing the wife, I'm fairly sure she also just thinks "well, so he feels possessive about the money, no use starting a big fight about it," so preserves family harmony while being a little sad about what she is and isn't able to do for the kids.

At least one relative she consulted in my hearing also had the reaction that it was unkind of him to keep refusing the house (so, not "you have no right to complain"), but without any instinctive sense that his behavior was actually violating her financial rights, so I'm not as optimistic about the informal third-party community intervention as you are. And I do think that taking things all the way to separation over something like low-level bullying would be obviously disastrous for a mom with no money and small kids who adore their dad.

Without having seen the_others' comment, I had written but not yet posted:

The counterargument is "I work for the family, my work increases your ability to bring in money and increases its availability for the family's use, the money is our money," with frankly a side of "What the hell is wrong with you of course it is!"

Also with something big and important like a house, "We can't afford it" and "I'll let you know" is not good enough; there need to be details. If it turns into "Stop nagging me about giving you details," that's honestly a red flag, what are you hiding dude? If that happened to a friend of mine I'd suggest she either start planning her exit or else at least open the next few bills that come in the mail. Can't? (Like, he makes sure to collect them before you can, or you know he'd blow up at you to the point that you'd be frightened?) Parade of red flags, plan your exit.

But yeah on places like AITAH on Reddit it typically goes as you describe.

I did consider mentioning the phrase "financial abuse"--because it is.

But it does also seem to me that perhaps among younger people especially (IOW, Reddit commenters)...well, 2 things:

  • these ideas have maybe been lost / not adopted; and more specifically (possibly a side point)

  • recent parents having often relied on "when you're helping pay for it, then you can have a say" to control their adolescent children, has left modern young people more inclined toward this type of attitude toward the SAHP.

To put it another way, some subcultures maybe don't have (not sure if "lost" or "never developed") the social technology to equitably manage a partnership which includes a SAHP.

It may be that where you live will affect whether your friend would win in court on financial abuse, IDK...but yeah, I would call it that.

And I do think that taking things all the way to separation over something like low-level bullying would be obviously disastrous for a mom with no money and small kids who adore their dad.

I wouldn't call that low-level bullying. Even if it's just "he doesn't want to move and he thinks the best way to handle this is to lie and make excuses," that's a big problem for the future stability of the partnership, and needs addressing sooner rather than later. Other possibilities: He's poor at managing money (really doesn't ever think they can afford it yet impulse-buys); he deliberately puts his needs above those of everyone else in the household; he's secretly gambling, using drugs, cheating, or visiting prostitutes... None of these things are minor, from a long-term family stability POV.

I mean, I agree that if she has no established career she has less leverage. But IMO this behavior is egregious enough that ignoring it would be a bad idea even for a mom with no money and small kids.

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