site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   35138 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 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.

I think parliamentary democracies were made to solve this problem.

Instead of choosing 1 person to dictate so much despite barely winning with 51% of the votes (a landslide by american standards), you can have an unlimited number of parties that can represent more than 2 ideologies, and in order to form a ruling coalition they have to make compromises with each other.

This is nice also because you don't have to vote "for the lesser evil", if you ideology isn't a perfect fit for any of the current parties it is a common practice to just create a new party, AfD for example was funded in 2013 and it is making tons of headlines after only ~10 years.

and in order to form a ruling coalition they have to make compromises with each other.

But the executive is still composed exclusively of the most popular party. Since Westminster-style democracies are a lot more unitary as opposed to the more balanced approach by the US you can run into a situation where that single party is thus permitted to do things like import voters they're hoping to be singularly loyal destroy the economy and otherwise abuse the powers of the office through its various levers.

Parliament is far from a solution.

But Germany is one of the parties that I mentioned in the post as being failures of liberalism. The parliamentary system collapsed. The other parties weren't willing to work with the AfD, finding them too detestable. Am I reading the situation correctly? The government will pick itself back up, but the problems of having fundamental disagreements within the country will continue, and get even worse.

This is kind of related to the thinking I've had on Marxism lately... I don't think the Founding Fathers properly understood that having people in the country that are opposed to the principles of the country are extremely corrosive to the country. Like the rationalists, they thought that the marketplace of ideas would win out, and that free argument would expose the wrong headed ways of thinking, just like exposure to sunlight kills germs. But they turned out to be totally wrong. People aren't rational.

I’m not sure I would call two hung parliaments the fall of liberalism. Especially not when it’s France and Germany. The French Republic has ceased to exist and been recreated five times already, and Germany has only been a republic for 80 years. And arguably, Germany has only been actually ruling itself for about 25 years.

The other parties weren't willing to work with the AfD, finding them too detestable.

This is all virtue signaling, it was very easy to say that while AfD was so small that cooperation wasn't needed. Since they are still growing, the CDU did cooperate recently with the AfD to pass some anti illegal immigration laws.

This is only after it started looking like they could outright get an absolute majority. FDP and Greens were in ruling coalitions while being absolute nobodies as far as voting percentages went.

Yeah the ruling coalition isn't based on numbers alone, parties form coalitions for being ideologically similar.

Have you ever seen the compositions of German coalitions??

They were never even remotely close to an absolute majority.

I meant if present trend continues. I think they were already the second biggest party per recent polling, and have more than cracked the threshold of a cabinet position or two, as per standard German politics, so its not just empty virtue signalling.

I think the two or so concerned German posters here would actually contend that other parties working with the AfD instead of trying to shut them out would not, in fact, be the end of Germany or possibly even the end of the German state as it is currently understood. A collapse of one set of preferences does not have to mean a total collapse of a liberal system, in my estimation, and I think this is where you're getting tripped up: a correction/realignment of the political landscape can be very painful, as we've seen, but it may be necessary and even actually prevent the downfall of a liberal system.

I mean, to be fair, the President isn't supposed to have as much power as Trump (or any other president of recent vintage) has exercised.

We're at the end of a long process where every crisis saw Congress adding emergency powers to the presidency, and that, combined with Congresses' current dysfunctions, created a situation where the only source of change is the Executive.

A system will always collapse at its weakest point. In the past that has been the Supreme Court (witness Obergefell), and at various points it has been the Imperial Presidency.

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