site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   17357 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

Which is good, because Japan needs every citizen it can get. Population is still dropping, and everyone who kills themselves can no longer contribute to society nor create and raise society's next generation.

Those people don't owe Japan their lives. Maybe if Japan wants them to contribute to society or create and raise society's next generation, it can make doing those things seem better than literal oblivion.

People owe the societies they live in, actually. If you want to go live in the woods with wolves and bears for neighbors then more power too you, that’s the condition for opting out.

Giving someone a service they never asked for, then claiming they owe you for it, is a classic scam. And this isn't the 16th century. There is nowhere you can run that a government won't find you. They own everything.

Oh BS. You can move to a society which doesn’t have a government(Haiti) or remote parts of limited state capacity societies. Yes there’s a good chance that the locals in rural parts of the Congo will rob and then murder you, but ‘basic security’ is a service from the state.

If the world owes you nothing, you owe nothing to the world.

But society does owe its members things. Not infinite things, but some things.

Then actually say that, and not just be dismissive with 'if you want to go live in the woods with wolves and bears for neighbors' with all that implies.

As I put in the other reply, if society has gotten to the point where a sizable portion of people are going 'Fuck this, I'm out', then something about society has been broken fundamentally and needs to be addressed. You can't just brush it off and absolve society of any responsibility.

What a strange thing to believe. Do you believe parents have no duties to their children, and that children have no duties to their parents?

Quite the opposite. (Note that statement starts with 'If'.)

I've seen the argument that people should suffer for society far too much, with the condescending, sneering reply of 'Just go live in the wilderness, see how you like it' in response to people having issues with parts of current society to the point it's almost a cliché.

I'm a firm believer that door swings both ways - that society has an obligation to the people therein, and that people have an obligation to the society, but only when this operates in a fair, back and forth, equitable fashion. If society has gotten to the point where a sizable portion of people are going 'Fuck this, I'm out', then something about society has been broken fundamentally and needs to be addressed.

My argument is the statement of 'people owe the societies they live in', without any caveats, and the follow up of 'if you want to go live in the woods with wolves and bears for neighbors' with the implied threat therein, is just blind adherence, bordering on slavery.

Either it goes both ways, or it doesn't go at all.

Hence my reply of 'If the world owes you nothing, you owe nothing to the world'. Because if society owes you nothing, you owe nothing to society.

(Yes, there's the fair debate of how much society owes the individual, but let's not go into that right now...)

That makes a great deal of sense, and I would broadly agree. Thanks for clarifying.

Why is living in the woods a valid way to opt out, but killing yourself isn't?

People owe the societies they live in, actually.

No. Communistsitarians tend to think this because it allows them to demand infinite sacrifice for zero benefit, but the social contract is continually and constantly renegotiated.

In this case, society isn't holding up its end of the bargain- the "owes its members a future that's at least as good as it was before" part- and as a result, the individuals that make up society will under-deliver in TFR until it starts delivering.

Kind of seems that that is exactly what they are doing: providing mental health services, attempting to find ways to reduce social isolation, trying to change social norms so that literal oblivion does not look like such a nice choice in comparison to social disgrace, etc.

No, they're trying to convince them not to choose oblivion despite not actually changing the conditions. That is, they're trying to get some marginal people from "life sucks so bad I'd rather be dead" to "life sucks almost bad enough I'd rather be dead", not generally improving conditions.

Kind of seems like they're trying to change the conditions. That 9 step plan they started off with in 2007 consisted of:

(i) research on the prevalence, risk, and protective factors for suicidal behaviors; (ii) increased public awareness; (iii) human resources for early intervention; (iv) community efforts for mental health; (v) better access to mental healthcare; (vi) supportive community environments; (vii) prevention of suicide reattempts; (viii) support for persons bereaved by suicide; and (ix) enhanced public–private partnerships.

Seems like doing more to treat depression, improving access to mental healthcare, and creating supportive community environments are all ways of changing the conditions. What would you want them to do?

What would you want them to do?

Make Japan better. Not concentrate on those who are near the border of offing themselves.

They're trying to make Japan better by making it easier to access mental healthcare and find ways to fight societal isolation. That you would want them to make Japan better is obvious, what specifically should they be doing to make it better that they're refusing to do? Give everyone a check each month? Let the zombie corporations die? Mail everyone a waifu pillow?

I'd argue that Japan is already in a pretty good place in most respects. Trapped in a local maximum, perhaps, but it's not the worst local maximum to be in.

Evidently, all those people offing themselves feel otherwise. (And given that the rest of them aren't reproducing, by and large, it's hard to say it's just them problem)

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