site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33233 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.

If we are bringing back higher standards of dress, a formal evening event at the White House should surely be White Tie?

Yees but we're talking about the entire male federal workforce here, we're already asking them to have 3 levels of fanciness. I'm not sure we can go with white tie as well. Maybe that's if they get invited to get the Medal of Freedom or whatever.

As for no brown in town. I repudiate them! A brown Oxford or Derby looks much better with a navy suit than black. And I wore brown in town all the time in my time in the City, and no-one ever assaulted me with an umbrella. A charcoal grey suit is a good choice though. But unless we are providing a fashion budget (re-allocate USAID funds to tailors for the Feds?), I am not sure how many suits we can expect them to have and keep well tailored.

Yees but we're talking about the entire male federal workforce here, we're already asking them to have 3 levels of fanciness. I'm not sure we can go with white tie as well. Maybe that's if they get invited to get the Medal of Freedom or whatever.

Neufert's architectural reference is excruciatingly utilitarian, measuring everything to squeeze out every square centimeter. Here's what it uses to size a man's closet:

  • 2 summer suits
  • 2 winter suits
  • 1 tracksuit
  • 2 summer coats
  • 1 raincoat
  • 2 winter coats
  • 1 black suit
  • 1 dinner jacket
  • 1 tailcoat
  • 6 nightshirts
  • 12 shirts
  • 12 undershirts
  • 6 t-shirts
  • 12 undergarments
  • 3 white tie shirts
  • 8 pocket squares
  • 24 pairs of socks
  • 2 summer hats
  • 2 winter caps
  • 1 straw hat
  • 2 scarves
  • 5 pairs of shoes
  • 2 pairs of boots
  • 2 pairs or track shoes
  • 2 pairs of slippers

If the Germans think a man should have seven suits, including a tux and tails, then why shouldn't much richer Americans have them?

An interest question given that this is presumably translated from German, but is the tailcoat supposed to be a morning coat or white tie? They are different designs of tailcoat for different purposes.

In the modern UK, I suspect a morning coat would be worn more often, but I can imagine the opposite being true elsewhere.

I expect it to be "der Frack", which is the white tie version. Give than the morning coat is called "der Cutaway" in German, I don't believe it's common there. I also think that the "black suit" on the list is "der Stresemann", a stroller suit.

The stroller has basically disappeared in the UK, with black-tie tier daytime events either switching down to suits or up to full morning dress. I support this trend, as I am not aware of anyone except Winston Churchill managing to look noticeably better in a stroller than a business suit.

Apparently barristers still wear it.

Yes, one doesn’t really see morning dress in the Germanic world. White tie one sees occasionally, eg. certain balls during the season in Vienna.

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