site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   9367 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.

I thought the Democratic Party was primarily ideologically motivated, but I'm realizing more and more that it's a patronage network. Their sinecures are more important than ideology, the country, the debt, everything.

Let me know when you have such a shocking realization about anyone you actually liked.

If you find a conservative-leaning individual that actually believes the Republican Party and broader right wing is low on people who were likable but turned out to act as though "sinecures are more important than ideology, the country, the debt, everything", please point them to me. I can come up with a pretty wide list of once-loved (among soccons) conservative politicians and speakers that turned out quite willing to sell their movement up a creek, sometimes for embarrassingly few pieces of silver light grift.

To be fair, the Republicans only got into their new position of Shiva the Destroyer because they were so inept at the power game they lost nearly 100% of the elite.

We're lucky in a way. Normally it takes a war or a depression or other major crisis to clean up government. But we're getting a cleanup on the cheap. It's a miracle really. Normally the corruption would be split equally between the two parties, and would be impossible to get rid of. But since everyone in the elite was so united against Trump, he can go after corruption without any political cost.

Don't worry, I'm sure if Trump gets what he wants, there will be lots of corruption flowing to Republicans as well. In a way, the current situation is a result of the Dems just winning so hard for so long.

I donno about that. There are reports I'm inclined to believe that Trump's SV donors are having their way slashing away at regulators (even justifiable ones) that have been hounding them. I'm taking the reports with a grain of salt, but if they are to be believed and aren't just fear mongering we may see rollbacks of numerous pro-consumer banking regulations. Like how banks and credit cards can't order transactions to maximize fees. But we shall see.

I still think 4 years of SV theoretically looting the commons won't be as bad as the last 4 years of open borders, schools secretly transitioning children, DEI mandates and your quality of life constantly being attacked (no plastic straws, gas ovens, etc) because "muh environment". But maybe they'll surprise me. Maybe they'll invent fresh horrors the likes of which makes me beg we could return to debating only sterilizing and mutilating children.

You guys are whipped up in a frenzy over mere speculation. Is there any actual evidence to suggest corruption here? Trump constantly engages in brazenly corrupt behavior, but all I hear from the acolytes here are apologetics that strain the limits of credulity.

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