site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33245 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 10, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That said, I still want someone to aggressively comb over the payments, instead of hand waving away that everything is totally normal and nothing at all to be concerned about what so ever. Check the names on accounts, send people to do in person interviews if need be. I'm sure the FBI could be put to more productive use than having 40% of their agents conducting no-knock paramilitary raids on grandmas who got waved through the capital by confused police.

I agree with this sentiment. I'll add as well that even if the gross amount of money saved isn't that huge, it sends an incredibly important signal to the rest of the government - if you commit fraud and/or waste money, we will find it, and you will be punished.

The chilling effects from this alone I'd imagine would save a ton of money. Plus it improves public sentiment towards the government, encourages people who just want to grift to stay away, etc etc. It's not just about saving money right off the bat, it's the entire mindset of the people who would go in and do something like these cost cutting measures.

I'll add as well that even if the gross amount of money saved isn't that huge

That this could even be an argument against it drives me up a wall. I know you aren't making that argument, the opposite in fact. But we both know that argument will be made. "Elon spent some billions of dollars to save some millions from Social Security Fraud! Who's wasting tax dollars now?!" But we don't apply that to the money spent catching murderers, auditing minimum wage workers, the FBI entrapped autistic kids in their mother's basements, etc, etc. The people likely to complain about the cost of catching fraud and waste in the government are never the same people worried about the cost to enforce censorship on the internet, anti-racist departments in every institution in America, etc. They won't complain about all the money spent on lawfare to get Trump the last 4 years. Money means nothing to them, but they know it means something to us, and so they will disingenuously complain that the things we want cost too much to get us to back down. God help us if the "reasonable centrist" gets talked into believing it.

The argument about saving only millions in Social Security fraud seems like the opposite of the actual controversy. First, DOGE seems to not cost a lot of money. Second, that DOGE is not reducing fraud and waste in SS/Medi and is instead targetting programs that it ideologically opposes is the actual criticism of DOGE.

Of course, if you also are ideologicslly opposed to various DOGE targets, then you probably view these targets' existence as counterproductive and their removal to be an efficiency gain.

ideologically opposes

This is just who/whom. One person's "Why is USAID funding drag shows in the 3rd world?" is another person's "Yay! USAID is funding drag shows in the 3rd world!" Unambiguous fraud/waste to one seems like we're just getting rid of programs we "ideologically oppose" to another.

In practice, USAID is probably not funding drag shows in the third world, it's funding brainstorming sessions for drag shows in the third world. I suspect the people very upset about it either way know this- did the transgender opera in Columbia like, actually happen?

did the transgender opera in Columbia like, actually happen?

It did, it was "As One" it was performed three times in Bogotá on march 16th, april 22nd and april 28th of 2022, in three different theaters. It was even announced on X (then twitter): https://x.com/OLA_opera/status/1501640790988275721

Then let's publicize "USAID is funding drag shows in the third world" and see how many people react in the first manner and how many react in the second.

Yes, obviously! I think that what point out is already baked into my comment.

Money means nothing to them, but they know it means something to us, and so they will disingenuously complain that the things we want cost too much to get us to back down

A somewhat more charitable reading would be something more like "We don't care if fraudsters waste money and we don't care if DOGE wastes money; but if DOGE only exists to stop waste, and winds up wasting more money than it saves, then it fails on its own terms and has literally no reason to exist".

Justice is not a waste.

I think it honestly depends. For example, if we thought the fraud catching systems were already quite strong and the likely fraud was 0.0001% then I wouldn’t advocate putting much in the way of more resources into auditing fraud.

But that doesn’t seem to be our facts. The systems seem a mess so there is no way to know ex ante how much fraud there is.

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