site banner
PaperclipPerfector  25d ago (text post)   32077 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.

The thing is, when you post provably false s*** like the 4% approval rating thing we discussed in the other thread, and then when called out on it you double down, that alienates smart people who care about the truth. For instance, here's what Steve Sailer said today:

It would be great if DOGE could distinguish who is doing useful boutique research on education and who is wasting taxpayer money. But it appears that DOGE doesn’t have time for that, much like DOGE doesn’t seem to have time for much else in the way of useful analysis.

On the other hand, every time the NYT dubiously asserts that Trump is about to do something stupid, Trump cultists dreams up all sorts of ideas why, actually, that would be a genius 4-D chess thing to do.

https://www.stevesailer.net/p/will-doge-cancel-naep

Seems like DOGE is burning its bridges with the very demographic it was supposed to appeal to, while maintaining the support of people who have never said a critical thing about Trump in their entire lives.

One canceled contract was weighing how effectively Oregon schools spent taxpayer dollars that were set aside to improve reading instruction, by emphasizing phonics, vocabulary and other building blocks of early literacy.

Sailer’s entire post hinges on this.

The lab for which funding was cut spends a lot of resources on addressing “inequitable disciplinary actions” ie wasting money on trying to “address” why blacks are disciplined more, etc. So it’s good that their funding was cut. On WestEd, who was granted money to work on REL West —

Take research consultancy WestEd, which runs REL West and is a supporting partner for several other RELs. With $260 million in revenue and more than 1,400 employees across 13 offices, the consultancy receives substantial public funding. Financial statements show that a third of WestEd’s revenue comes from federal sources, and almost half from state and local sources. The consultancy’s products include a report promoting the replacement of standardized tests with controversial lottery admissions to ensure “equitable” access to competitive magnet high schools, and a teacher’s guide on “culturally responsive” math education. WestEd even trained teachers on “Critical Race English Education.” Participants learned, for instance, how they could lead lessons which examine the role of the “white savior complex” in Atticus Finch’s character development in To Kill a Mockingbird.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-department-of-education-contracts-left-activism

If the media cared about the truth, an iota, they would tell you this. They don’t. They omit and lie. I hope conservatives become the best omitters and liars in the entire world, and then we win. As of now, because it’s such a waste of time to actively determine how the media is lying, I am in a kind of default “the media is always lying” hibernation. Just cut everything at this point, I really don’t care — the Oregonians get what they deserve

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