site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   35803 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.

Last I counted, roughly 1 in 20 high-skill Canadian workers currently work in the US on non-immigrant visas.

Demanding they return, which could be accomplished in a variety of ways, would be relatively disruptive to the Americans (or force them into a relatively awkward position in granting citizenship to what are supposed to be non-immigrant workers).

NAFTA doesn't just mean a lack of tariffs; that Canada should permit the brain-drain was part of the negotiations.

I understand that, but I'm asking how they would demand that. The Canadian government doesn't control where Canadians live. I doubt our government would be allowed by the Supreme Court to pass a law preventing us from living in the US.

The Canadian government doesn't control where Canadians live

But it does have some laws controlling what they do while living outside the country, including ones that have to do with certain types of commerce.

If they can ban that (and as far as I know the courts are fine with it), they can ban working for American companies. Enforcement is another matter, but since when has that stopped anyone?

Are you sure it wouldn't be more disruptive to Canada?

First, 5% of Canada's workers is not 5% of America's workers.

Second, American companies can scramble and hire someone from the rest of the world. I don't know what kind of jobs we're talking about, but I imagine at least some of them can be done online, making the replacement process a bit easier. Canada will have 5% of it's workforce pissed off at losing an American salary, and with no guarantee there's any job waiting for them back home.

Also, this move is easily countered by the US, they can literally just say "don't worry, bro, you can stay here as long as you want". How many of these people would rather cut off the US in favor of Canada, rather than the other way around?

Are you sure it wouldn't be more disruptive to Canada?

I don't think Canada cares nor is in any position to care.

Canada will have 5% of it's workforce pissed off at losing an American salary

They already have 100% of the workforce pissed off at having their COL jump another 20% overnight. And honestly, they can do business here, and work on making Canada better rather than America. Of course that would require a pro-growth government, which the sitting one is very much not, but one step at a time.

I don't know what kind of jobs we're talking about

The ones that are worth it- the engineers, the scientists, the programmers. There's a list of occupations subject to this; generally if not exclusively requiring at least a Sciences degree.

they can literally just say "don't worry, bro, you can stay here as long as you want"

I already answered this.

I think Canada does care. Most Canadians have relatives who live in the US and would care that their lives would be disrupted.

I don't think Canada cares nor is in any position to care.

I don't follow. You've proposed this as a move that is supposed to benefit Canada. If it disrupts them more, while it's not hurting America, how are they supposed to benefit from it?

And honestly, they can do business here, and work on making Canada better rather than America. Of course that would require a pro-growth government, which the sitting one is very much not, but one step at a time.

Not only would it require such a government, it would require it to be in power long enough to build infrastructure making such a move possible. There was this old quip from my parent's era: "If we had tin, we'd flood the West with cheap canned food! But alas, we have no meat...", don't know if this was communist-era dark humor or a part of an actual speech (communists had terrible speechwriters), but that's essentially what your argument sounds like to me.

The ones that are worth it- the engineers, the scientists, the programmers. There's a list of occupations subject to this; generally if not exclusively requiring at least a Sciences degree

Doesn't do much to answer my question - sounds like part of them could indeed be done online, though probably not all.

I already answered this.

That it would be "awkward"? Ok, and? Also, a green card would be more than enough, no need for citizenship.

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