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.

Adams can’t even do anything on immigration. That said, while corrupt, he’s still less corrupt than the average Democrat machine politician in eg. Chicago or Philadelphia and it’s clear he was (even if justifiably) targeted because the party wanted Garcia.

I think corruption involving foreign governments is, for good reasons, taken more seriously than corruption involving domestic private-sector crooks. Even Chicago pols don't normally take bribes from foreign governments.

That said, while corrupt, he’s still less corrupt than the average Democrat machine politician in eg. Chicago or Philadelphia and it’s clear he was (even if justifiably) targeted because the party wanted Garcia.

Proof for either of these claims?

I don't know what you'll take for proof, but let's break it down:

  • Despite it being very obvious, Adam's corruption is hilariously trivial: some nice plane tickets and hotel stays for fast tracking a building.
  • Chicago is an incredibly corrupt city, you don't have to go too far into the past, look at whatever the hell this casino thing is.
  • Chicago is dominated by democrats to an even greater extent than New York City
  • Therefore, while we may not be able to pinpoint who exactly is responsible for each individual instance of corruption, it is rather safe to assume that for the vast majority of cases, they are a democratic politician.
  • So, any of these unnamed but real Chicago democratic politicians could be reasonably considered more corrupt than Eric Adams

This is, of course, not definitive proof, because you might dispute the following assumptions:

  • That this Adams' only instance of corruption: I don't know about only, but it is probably the worst, because nothing else seems to have come out after the indictment.
  • That Chicago is very corrupt: I admit I haven't provided a lot of evidence for this; I am, after all, but a simple terminally online foreigner, but by all accounts, it does seem to be true. Would you dispute this claim?
  • That this instance of corruption is not particularly bad. Maybe you're working with a different assumption from mine: that a very obvious, but small, instance of corruption is worse than diffuse and opaque networks of favors and beneficiaries.

I don't know what you'll take for proof, but let's break it down:

  • Despite it being very obvious, Adam's corruption is hilariously trivial: some nice plane tickets and hotel stays for fast tracking a building.

...

This is, of course, not definitive proof, because you might dispute the following assumptions:

  • That this Adams' only instance of corruption: I don't know about only, but it is probably the worst, because nothing else seems to have come out after the indictment.

I don't know of another allegation of prior corruption, off the top of my head, but committing a second quid pro quo changing mayoral policy in exchange for the Feds dropping the charges for the first quid pro quo, as seems to be the case, would be pretty fucking corrupt.

Aren’t Chicago democrats famously corrupt? And I don’t think you can fairly ask for a source on the second claim

Aren’t Chicago democrats famously corrupt?

Yes. Adams's alleged quid pro quo is tough bar to clear, though.

And I don’t think you can fairly ask for a source on the second claim

2rafa said it was "clear" - how is it unfair to ask for proof of a "clear" claim?

Got a source for that, bro?

  • -10

Yeah, how dare bro ask for sources here? Doesn't bro know this is reddit themotte and everyone here already knows all republicans democrats are corrupt?

Do you have a source for themotte being conservative?

That behavior is obnoxious. Don’t ask for sources. If you disagree, provide your own. Rebuttals should involve the same amount of effort as that which they wish to rebut.

No I don't think that behavior is obnoxious. I think it's obnoxious to mock someone for requesting somebody else to substantiate their claims. Actually, if you have just posted this second paragraph initially, I would not have commented, even if I disagree with it.

I don't think the request to substantiate one's claims count as a rebuttal, and the question basically involve the same amount of effort as the initial claim.

Yes, it is obnoxious to demand "Source?" when someone states an opinion. If you think they're wrong, argue the point. If someone makes a factual claim, you can politely ask for evidence, but "Democrats are corrupt" is such a general statement, anyone can throw links arguing for or against the proposition and you know it. Stop this petty sniping.

Time to return to the scheduled programming in which I complain about moderation! I believe the tropey term for statements that are impossible to corroborate or refute is "not even wrong". Either @2rafa's statement was in that category, in which case she should not have made it to begin with; or @sockpuppet2's request for evidence was in principle reasonable, in which case he shouldn't have been mocked for it, nor implicitly unilaterally dinged by the modhat. Even if the request was in fact unreasonable, a mocking one-liner is certainly not mending any broken windows in the neighbourhood.

You looked at an escalation spiral that started with 2rafa's low-quality post (red valence), which invited a low-quality reply (blue valence) by sockpuppet2, which invited an even lower-quality response (red) by jeroboam, which in turn invited an equally lower-quality response (blue) by UwU, which then invited a mercifully higher-quality meta-discussion by the last two, and modhatted it casting blame on the blue-coloured entries in the chain only. Is this not a clear case of selective enforcement (more colourfully, "anarcho-tyranny")? And then you go and act like the community's rightward shift is an unfortunate natural phenomenon that you have nothing to do with and can't do anything about.

Why do you default to ‚admonish everyone‘ when ‚no one‚ is the much more logical choice? Moderation is more likely to hit the left-wing minority. Not because of mod bias, but because the mob will :

  • pick dozens of high hostility fights

  • report any opposing comment when the fight inevitably devolves

  • mass complain and argue against mod action against their side, and for banning the other guy

Then they both get banned, fair enough. So no more left-wingers left, but for the mob, plenty more where their guy came from.

As to the original beef, „Source?“ demands should be protected as always legitimate. „Source?“ is what keeps discussions casual and factual. Without „Source?“, we‘d have to provide sources all the time for everything.

More comments

What outcome are you hoping for?

More comments

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