site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   20152 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 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.

Maybe it is harder for congress to destroy than it is to create, but that is because congress needs a degree of consensus. The president does not.

No, unfortunately (for me) the create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere. Congress needs consensus between both houses to pass laws, but on the contrary either house can defect from equilibrium to shut down the government. That's a structural advantage for conservatives that can't be legislated or protested away.

I admit-- part of my frustration with my own party is that they seem completely ignorant of the fact that you need hard power to control the government. It's not enough to get 51% of the poorest people on your side when the 49% richest can take their ball and go home. That's why I'm in favor of completely abandoning the old as a voting block-- the only thing we need to do to kill social security is nothing. Then if republicans target democratic priorities (welfare for the poor, cultural projects) they can enforce MAD even with a minority government. Given trump's expansion of power, I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries. Landowners fundamentally have higher security needs, which makes the greatest strength of the republican party also their Achilles heel.

Anti-old paramilitaries? Welfare for the old has been a core Democratic policy for nearly 100 years at this point, and old women are arguably their most loyal demographic. Add in the medical practitioners and their auxiliaries whose jobs are to care for the old in some variety and you have a massive chunk of the Democratic coalition.

Democrats at best are every bit as much a party of Gerontocracy as the Republicans are, if not moreso.

No, unfortunately (for me) the create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere. Congress needs consensus between both houses to pass laws, but on the contrary either house can defect from equilibrium to shut down the government. That's a structural advantage for conservatives that can't be legislated or protested away.

Ok, but you haven't actually given a reason why your rule works everywhere, in particular for the president. I do agree the rule holds for congress, but you aren't arguing in OP that "create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere", you are arguing it specifically for the president without any support. Why exactly does it hold for the president? Your justification given for the "create-vs-destroy rule" clearly does not apply to the president - the president is one person. There is no barrier of consensus to for one person.

Then if republicans target democratic priorities (welfare for the poor, cultural projects) they can enforce MAD even with a minority government.

Republicans can target these priorities because, if it holds up in court, a president can now just fire anyone who works at a government agency. That clearly structurally favors those who do not like government agencies, the GOP. The president cannot just create a new government agency, not to the extent he can just destroy one. The president still needs congress for funding of that agency.

Given trump's expansion of power, I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries. Landowners fundamentally have higher security needs, which makes the greatest strength of the republican party also their Achilles heel.

There isn't a meaningful difference in voting patterns for landowners or people with money and people without. Suburban voters were split almost 50:50 between trump and kamala.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1535295/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/ https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5198616/2024-presidential-election-results-republican-shift

No there are not paramilitary groups in the US posing any threat to landowners, or the rich, or old people.

You are not engaging with reality here, the world you are describing does not exist.

Ok, but you haven't actually given a reason why your rule works everywhere, in particular for the president. I do agree the rule holds for congress, but you aren't arguing in OP that "create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere", you are arguing it specifically for the president without any support. Why exactly does it hold for the president? Your justification given for the "create-vs-destroy rule" clearly does not apply to the president - the president is one person. There is no barrier of consensus to for one person.

Presidents need congress to fund their projects and the courts to prosecute people acting against them.

Republicans can target these priorities because, if it holds up in court, a president can now just fire anyone who works at a government agency. That clearly structurally favors those who do not like government agencies, the GOP. The president cannot just create a new government agency, not to the extent he can just destroy one. The president still needs congress for funding of that agency.

Yes, and that's a structural weakness of the democratic party that can only be solved via completely changing their electoral coalition. The democrats need to abandon some group of people that relies on the government to the republicans, while pulling in an anti-government faction. My personal preference would be for democrats to totally abandon old people in favor of a stronger appeal to young people. Then democrats would be able to hold social security and medicare hostage against fulfilling priorities like student loan forgiveness and climate action. And the more power gets taken away from old people, the less their cultural conservatism would hold sway over the american public.

There isn't a meaningful difference in voting patterns for landowners or people with money and people without. Suburban voters were split almost 50:50 between trump and kamala.

The democrats win the urban core, while the republicans win the rural areas. That is to say: the people who literally own more land go for republicans.

You are not engaging with reality here, the world you are describing does not exist.

I know it doesn't exist-- yet. I'm speaking of the political moves the democrats should make in the next two and four years to take advantage of trump's double-edged sword.

Presidents need congress to fund their projects and the courts to prosecute people acting against them.

These are reasons that do not support your position that it is easier to create than to destroy, they support the position that it is easier to destroy than to create.

  • Funding projects is creation. If the president needs congress to fund their projects, that is a barrier to creation.
  • Unfunding projects is destruction. If the president does not need congress to defund projects, then there is no barrier to destruction.

If the president has a barrier to create, but no barrier to destroy, then that should lead you to believe that it is easier for the president to destroy than it is to create. That is the opposite of your position.

Yes, and that's a structural weakness of the democratic party that can only be solved via completely changing their electoral coalition. The democrats need to abandon some group of people that relies on the government to the republicans, while pulling in an anti-government faction.

Ok if the democrats need to completely change their electoral coalition to solve this, then that seems like a pretty good indication that this change really does not favor the democrats. Helping people with the government is a pretty core belief of progressivism. If the democrats abandon that position, then to what extent are they democrats anymore?

I don't think that structural weakness can actually be solved by the democrats. The democrats are the progressive party, and progressivism is about change. Which happens though reform, or action, or creation. If the president can now unilaterally stop and / or destroy federal programs, then that does not favor reform or action or creation.

Yes there are some conservative oxen that can be gored by a left wing president. But structurally there will always be more progressive oxen, the progressives are the ones interested in change and expansion.

The democrats win the urban core, while the republicans win the rural areas. That is to say: the people who literally own more land go for republicans.

A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?

These are reasons that do not support your position that it is easier to create than to destroy, they support the position that it is easier to destroy than to create.

Uh, I just realized I stupidly mistyped this in the first comment and then didn't pick up on it later. It's harder to create than to destroy; we agree on this point.

Helping people with the government is a pretty core belief of progressivism. If the democrats abandon that position, then to what extent are they democrats anymore?

The democrats aren't the "progressive" party. They're the urban party. Progressivism is highly adaptive for urbanites, so urbanites adopt progressivism and demand democratic leaders. It's not the other way around, where progressive leaders convert urbanites.

And in any case, progressivism isn't about "helping people" in general, it's about helping specific people, who by some calculus deserve that help. All the democrats have to do is change the calculus... drop the expensive, economically useless, socially conservative old people, pull in the technocratic, culturally liberal tech bros. I'm not saying they will do that, but it wouldn't be a huge ideological stretch if they did.

A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?

You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.

You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead

In practice, major rural landowners need state protection from one group and one group only- communist revolutionaries. Other groups tend to side with rural landowners, maybe in exchange for payment.

The democrats aren't the "progressive" party. They're the urban party. Progressivism is highly adaptive for urbanites, so urbanites adopt progressivism and demand democratic leaders. It's not the other way around, where progressive leaders convert urbanites.

The democrats are definitely the progressive party. Their policy is progressive. The mechanism they arrive at their progressivism doesn't really concern my argument. But if we agree then I don't care to dispute it.

You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.

What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence? Why would I think in a frame that doesn't accurately reflect the world? No, I am not going to think in those terms, and I find the idea ridiculous.

The democrats are definitely the progressive party. Their policy is progressive. The mechanism they arrive at their progressivism doesn't really concern my argument. But if we agree then I don't care to dispute it.

I know we're arguing about definitions, which is the lowest form of argument, but I still think it's worth trying to get you to see my side. When you say, "the democrats are... the progressive party," you're taking a descriptive view of the ways the democrats behave. And it's accurate! But it's also missing the point. It's like calling a motorcycle gang a "motorcycle helmet wearing gang". Democrats adopt progressivism because it is useful to them-- because they have particular common needs the ideology serves. They would still be (mostly) bound together if they found a different way of addressing the same needs. That's why I call democrats the urban party-- because their needs and desires are fundamentally a result of what urbanites need and want. Yes, there are non-urbanist democrats, just like there are urbanist republicans, because not all urbanites share the same needs. But serving urban environments is still fundamentally the core of what the party is and wants.

What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence?

Uh, the fact that we're already here? Two trump assasins and luigi. Unless the economy skyrockets and things start getting immediately better now we're already going through what later historians will probably call "the american troubles" or something alike.

What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence?

Headed towards? Organized political violence was all over every major city in 2020- the last time anything of that scale (and with that excuse) occurred was 1992, and the political violence was comparatively less organized and restricted to one city.

To be clear, which I was not really, this is the context of the original claim I had in mind:

I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries.

Ok yes the LA riots and 2020 would both meet the bar of organized political violence. But I think both of these are much closer to "tacitly approved race riots" than to "paramilitary organizations targeting political and / or ideological opponents". They are not and have not been permanent political fixtures, its something that bubbles over every 30 or so years (1967, 1992, 2025).

Even if I were to concede - and say yes, ok, these are two examples of paramilitary orgs targeting people I don't think it proves OP's point.

A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?

You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.

The 1967, 1992 and 2020 race riots were all urban phenomenon. They were targeted at urban whites, not the old or the rich or suburban / rural. Don't quote me on this but I wouldn't be surprised if the rioters burned down and destroyed more of their own community than those of who they were mad at. Even if I were to concede these count as paramilitary orgs doing paramilitary political violence, which I think is very weak, they have historically been targeting by proximity more so than anything else. They aren't going out the the country to do whatever OP has in mind.

I'm interested in seeing you expand upon your second paragraph, seems like there's a lot to unpack there.

EDIT: I see you expanded upon it somewhat in your other reply, no need to reduplicate it now.

Governments require popular buy-in ("power") to function. Democracy is the idea that popular majorities confer such obvious power that it's pointless to oppose them. Republicanism is the idea that influential minority groups still need to be catered to.

The democratic party (as its name implies) typically follows a strategy of gathering together majorities and advocating for increasing their power. But the republican party has effectively made use of the complement strategy-- finding the most powerful minorities available and adhering them together. And the republican party's strategy has proven dominant, because it's harder to distribute power than it is to prevent the redistribution of power. Democrats have had to fold, over and over again, to moderates like Manchin and Sinema. That infuriated and demoralized the democratic base. Meanwhile, Democrats not only got blamed for government shutdowns, they got blamed for compromising to end government shutdowns.

So the lesson is: if you have one side that promises to do things, and one side that promises to not do things, the latter faction is structurally advantaged. The only way to change the equilibrium is for the democrats to realign-- to drop some of their most vulnerable constituents and attract some of their least vulnerable opponents. I think the most effective way to do that would be to give up on social security. It's already beginning to fail, and no one under thirty expects to receive it. Meanwhile, it's catnip for the social-economic liberals on the republican side... the people who want to have sex, do drugs, and dodge taxes.

Plus, in an accelerationist sense, social security saps popular impetus for a UBI in the same way that medicare/medicaid sap the will for universal healthcare.

Plus, in an accelerationist sense, social security saps popular impetus for a UBI in the same way that medicare/medicaid sap the will for universal healthcare.

The only way that America will get either of those things will be in the name of of bailing out the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security.

Democrats have had to fold, over and over again, to moderates like Manchin and Sinema. That infuriated and demoralized the democratic base.

Progressivism is unpopular; a very tiny percentage of voters thought democrats were too far to the right.

Plus, in an accelerationist sense, social security saps popular impetus for a UBI in the same way that medicare/medicaid sap the will for universal healthcare.

An American UBI will almost certainly be executed through tax credits, and tax credit expansion is extremely popular and likely bipartisan.

Progressivism is unpopular; a very tiny percentage of voters thought democrats were too far to the right.

I had this same mental model of the world, and then harris lost. Without changing how I personally feel about progressivism, I now have to concede that the left-populists were right about the electorate.

It's worth remembering that the last democrat with any sort of popular movement was Yang, and he's also strongly populist-progressive (though not so much left-progressive.)

But the republican party has effectively made use of the complement strategy-- finding the most powerful minorities available and adhering them together.

The Democrats could also be described as making use of this tactic; prior to Trump, one could describe the two parties as rival coalitions: one made up of different ethnic minorities and college-educated whites, the other a weird mashup of business libertarians, religious fundamentalists, and ethnically-concerned right-wingers.

Democrats have had to fold, over and over again, to moderates like Manchin and Sinema. That infuriated and demoralized the democratic base.

One could argue, watching from another screen, that Manchin and Sinema were the last stalwarts keeping the Dem party from completely sabotaging itself and going full-lefty.

This is from your other reply, but I'll comment on it here:

And the more power gets taken away from old people, the less their cultural conservatism would hold sway over the american public.

Is the idea of "old = conservative" a given? I think a lot of your ideal vision rests a lot on this, among other things.

I think Phosphorus was getting at something when they claimed that you aren't describing reality, because it sounds like how you interpret politics and what you want out of politics are very weird and at odds with how things have tended to play out.

The Democrats could also be described as making use of this tactic

Yes, to some extent-- both parties use a variety of electoral strategies, I'm just describing a tactic the democratic coalition relies on more.

One could argue, watching from another screen, that Manchin and Sinema were the last stalwarts keeping the Dem party from completely sabotaging itself and going full-lefty.

I can and did argue that. I'm a neoliberal, not a leftist. But 2024 proved me wrong-- evidently the democratic base really did want left-populists, and us "return to normalcy" folks were basically wrong.

Is the idea of "old = conservative" a given? I think a lot of your ideal vision rests a lot on this, among other things.

Yes. Not every old person is a religious conservative-- but old people are intrinsically more resistant to change. Culture isn't just what people think about the gays... it's how people want their cities laid out, how business owners treat their employees, and what segments of the population are given disproportionate amounts of respect. And over the total spectrum of subjects, the old people in my party are basically as bad as the old people outside of it-- they still want to drive cars, destroy the environment, prevent dense construction, and extract transfer payments from the young.

I won't claim that the democratic party will abandon old people. I just think they should.

I don't think I have much more to say, other than I think that your "Eat the Old" idea is more of an aid to the "Eat the Rich" populist types than you might realize.

I don't mind if we eat the rich too, I just think it's infeasible. Slave revolutions basically never work-- you have to have some sort of elite buy-in.

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