site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   33236 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.

Plenty of politicians/movements have proven capable of picking their way through hostile bureaucracies without tearing the whole thing down.

Could you give some examples?

Deng, De Gaulle, Thatcher, Feng Guifen, Attlee

Please correct me if my history is off, but AFAIK Thatcher is the poster child for tearing it all down. That's why she privatised everything she could get her hands on, destroyed the unions and ended British coal mining. It's also why the Left burns her in effigy every chance they get. Her most famous line is "The lady's not for turning."

Harold Wilson, on the other hand, is famous for trying to come to a civilised accommodation with hostile unions and failing utterly:

For 16 months Prime Minister Harold Wilson has cajoled, wheedled and haggled with Britain’s powerful labor unions in a vain effort to stop their rampaging wage demands. The basis of his policy was the “social contract,” a formal deal (although never written into law) between the government and the labor unions. The government would deliver social welfare benefits in exchange for voluntary restraints in pay settlements. Purpose: to keep workers abreast of—but not ahead of—inflation.

But the unions have welshed on the deal. One major union after another won pay raises of 30% and more; during the past twelve months, average weekly wage rates for manual workers rose 32.6%, leapfrogging ahead of the 25% inflation rate for the same period. Last week, after inflation had worsened and the pound sterling had hit a new low, Wilson and his Cabinet took a deep breath and finally scrapped the tattered social contract.

Time Magazine 1975

(And Attlee came from before the time of entrenched hostile bureaucracies. Indeed, he founded many of them, including but not limited to the NHS and the various local planning committees).

but AFAIK Thatcher is the poster child for tearing it all down

This is rather overwrought, deindustrialisation and the drawdown of employment in SOEs was well underway under Wilson, but in any case the relevant point here is in her interactions with the bureaucracy, which is the particular point of discussion in this subthread. The point is that whatever changes Thatcher was in fact able to make re: privatisation and retrenchment (though bear in mind she increaseda a range of taxes (especially early on) because unlike Republicans she actually believed in austerity, for better or for worse) she did so without tearing apart the Civil Service, even though prevailing governmental consensus was for a mixed economy and national and regional planning.

And Attlee came from before the time of entrenched hostile bureaucracies.

This is silly - just because the scale of governmental employment was not what it is now, he still was dealing with an e.g. Treasury which, though changed by the dual experiences of depression and war, was still not inclined towards his agenda.

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