site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   38743 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.

The benefit to DOGE is that they can use the data to make a list of DOGE-uncooperative federal employees that should be prioritized for dismissal. They don't even need to open the responses, just making a spreadsheet with "answered email: yes/no" is a useful data point.

If you are confident that you are useful and friendly to the administration, you will answer. If you aren't, then you won't, and will be be subject to increased scrutiny.

I'm getting a little lost in the motttes and baileys. Your other response was talking about sentiment analysis to find people who dislike the administration. Now you claim that sending a response, any response, is enough to be put on the good boy list. Which, exactly, is it?

If you are confident that you are useful and friendly to the administration, you will answer. If you aren't, then you won't, and will be be subject to increased scrutiny.

In reality, you won't answer because your boss told you not to do it, because his boss told him to tell you not to do it, because his boss etc etc. and that's how any job works.

Write something completely anodyne but non-confrontational to appease Tiberius or join your supervisor on the proscription list. There's no way you'll get in trouble for writing "Performed my official job duties as job title at gov agency". I predict that many are going to disobey their immediate superiors and comply with the email as best they can. Don't be snarky, the thing LLMs are best at is sentiment analysis.

Nobody's immediate supervisor is telling anyone to ignore the email. The directives are coming from agency heads or higher--Trump appointees like Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. People in my agency didn't even get the email, although the two Trump appointees who are in my chain of command have told their people not respond if we do.

Edit: I should say nobody's immediate supervisor is using their own discretion to tell people not to respond. The information is passed down from higher up through the chain of command.

join your supervisor on the proscription list.

Happy to place bets on the number of federal employees fired for not responding to this email if you're willing to make this interesting. Otherwise, talk is cheap and this isn't ancient Rome.

Don't be snarky, the thing LLMs are best at is sentiment analysis.

So they do need to open the responses? Or they don't? Let's put the cards on the table so we all know what we're discussing here.

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