site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   34888 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Musk did not wear a suit when meeting with cabinet officials last week, an obvious sign of disrespect.

I assume this is a reference to the recent Vance / Zelensky event; and I agree that the administration's overall stance on this is a case of double standards and hypocrisy. However, I disagree that lack of a suit (for Musk or Z.) objectively can be interpreted as disrespect.

However, I disagree that lack of a suit (for Musk or Z.) objectively can be interpreted as disrespect.

Why do you disagree? I don't think it can be objectively interpreted as disrespect if people are misaligned regarding the expectations for a given setting, but if everyone is familiar with the expected level of formality and one party unilaterally settles on wearing joggers instead, that is absolutely a sign of disrespect. In the context of meetings between heads of state, Zelenskyy's choice of attire is certainly a signal, the only question is what exactly he's signaling.

Since he has already made not wearing a suit his "thing", it would have also been a signal for him to wear a suit. It would have probably signified a humiliation and subjection, a kowtow to the new Emperor.

I'm thinking of another leader who made disrespecting sartorial codes his "thing", the Greek PM Tsipras during the euro crisis, who made a point of not wearing a tie until there was a debt deal. Of course, when the debt deal was made, it was basically the same old austerity he had been elected to end, and when he wore a tie it was obviously an indication of submission (though the actual submission had been made far earlier).

It could also have been a signal about peace. His old style was the wartime-style. Switching to a suit visually indicates that a new era is at hand.

It would have probably signified a humiliation and subjection, a kowtow to the new Emperor.

@Dean was quite sure it would have signified selling out. I have a feeling that if we keep rerolling this discussion, well get yet more comments that Zelensky was definitely in the right with explanations that sound good in the context they occur but contradict each other.

I'm not sure if he was right or not, mainly posted to make the Tsipras comparison which has been on my mind for a while.

Curiously, in both his read on Zelensky and yours on Tsipras, theres seems to be idea of getting to wear something more formal. I dont see that attitude a lot, and especially wouldnt have expected it with a western leftist like Tsipras.

Zelensky was told to wear a suit, but he ignored this request:

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/28/trump-zelensky-oval-office-meeting-details?fbclid=IwY2xjawIvvGhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcl4MkMXu8xsDht4I9bWxmSGVNMdauUG3cZLlrBnTGQoxNV6iAyOdZFjiw_aem_7qKwtQao5R7cNRbftItcEQ

One small but not insignificant factor that irritated Trump was the fact that Zelensky didn't wear a suit, two sources with direct knowledge told Axios. Trump's advisers told Zelensky's team on multiple occasions that it would be more respectful for Zelensky to ditch his military-style attire when visiting the White House.

This is interesting to hear since Trump ultimately defended Zelensky not wearing a suit before the blowup.

I think not wearing a suit in a place other people are expected to wear one is usually a performative flex ("You can't enforce your petty dress code on a Man of Destiny like myself".) and therefore disrespectful to the host, though mildly so. This is obfuscated by the fact that western PMC norms are not to publicly dress-code people, but to quietly tut-tut behind their backs and freeze them out of mutually beneficial interactions in the future.

In the case of Musk, it was a performative minor humiliation of the rest of the Cabinet by Trump with Musk being the tool ("You have to obey the rules but he doesn't because I am the Boss and I say he is specialer than you.") - my impression of US business culture is that some form of performative minor humiliation at the start of a new job is common and expected among the kind of people who have broadly positive memories of fraternity hazing - but doing it in public is trashy.

my impression of US business culture is that some form of performative minor humiliation at the start of a new job is common and expected

My dear chap, I’d say it’s much more common amongst the British, having seen in the City more than one investment banking intern or junior humiliated for the wrong kind of shoe or wearing a shirt with a breast pocket (or even, on one occasion, wearing a pocket square).

My dear chap, I’d say it’s much more common amongst the British, having seen in the City more than one investment banking intern or junior humiliated for the wrong kind of shoe or wearing a shirt with a breast pocket (or even, on one occasion, wearing a pocket square).

My old bean, if a British merchant banker brought his pet monkey to the office to watch the juniors try making small talk with it, the monkey would be wearing a suit.

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