site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20d ago (text post)   31998 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I also decry murdering a jogger. No scare quotes needed on these words.

Just your typical jogger going for a perfectly normal jog through a vacant house looking for stuff to steal.

Bad take. My dad and I would, and for that matter still do, wander through houses for sale and construction sites all the time. Just for fun.

They did not find him in a vacant house. The home owner had security cameras and says he didn't see anyone entering the house the day of the murder. The murderers first saw Arbery on a public street. In a town that's majority black. They assumed Arbery must be a burglar and murdered him.

Some people discussing this years ago added a lot of fictional information to the situation that would justify killing a burglar in self defense. But resisting that urge and sticking to what actually occurred makes this unjustifiable murder. As confirmed by criminal trials.

Why bother telling such easily debunked lies?

AP News::

Jurors in the trial of three white men charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s killing watched security camera videos Thursday...jurors saw Arbery himself wandering between the home’s exposed beams and along its backyard boat dock on five different occasions between Oct. 25, 2019, and Feb. 23, 2020 — the last time mere minutes before he was shot dead in the street on a Sunday afternoon.

Okay. Strike that one sentence from my post. The rest is true and my position doesn't change.

There is no evidence that he was looking for stuff to steal, and to my knowledge no evidence that he had stolen in the past. The "citizen's arrest" was very clearly illegal, resisting it was a reasonable response, and shooting him for resisting was not self defense and was in fact murder.

It would have been trivial for the men involved to call the police and follow him at a distance if necessary. By chasing him while brandishing firearms, they gave him reasonable fear for his life and invalidated any claim of their own to self-defense in the ensuing altercation.

and to my knowledge no evidence that he had stolen in the past.

Here is footage of Arbery being arrested in 2017 for attempting to shoplift a television with a group of teens. Greg McMichael had worked on a shoplifting investigation of Arbery in his capacity as an investigator for the Brunswick County District Attorney’s office.

You’re correct that as far as I’m aware there is no concrete evidence that Arbery was the one responsible for the theft of items from the construction site in question, but there had been a recent spate of thefts in the area, including from that site, and Arbery had been caught fleeing from the site late at night during a prior confrontation. The McMichaels absolutely did have specific reasons to suspect Arbery of attempting to commit burglary.

Yup. The arguments in favor of the guys attempting a "citizen's arrest" involving chasing a man on foot in a car while brandishing longarms never made any sense.

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