site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   29671 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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.

Museums, libraries, etc., primarily benefit local communities. Why should my tax dollars go to a local library 1,000 miles away: can't they fund their own library if it matters so much to them?

You've replied to my comment here so I do believe you see the numbers there too. $268m/168m taxpayers = $1.59/taxpayer that goes to the IMLS. I would argue that:

  1. $1.59/taxpayer is a very small price for US citizens to help each other, even if it's across state lines or 1000 miles away.
  2. As explained in that comment, most of library funding is already local, and in the case of Alabama, you pointed out that Alabama effectively got $0 from the federal government for 2024.
  3. Since we want to encourage local and regional brilliance, shouldn't that be argument that more funds should be given to states and local municipalities to do what they will? Seems to me like the major funding from IMLS are exactly just that.

I think you’d have to demonstrate that the program in question was of actual benefit to anyone in the public, and in far too many cases the benefits are: promoting progressive values, serving as safehouses for drug users, and occasionally providing something educational to a kid.

The amount per taxpayer is small, sure, but the question is whether the amount should be used to fund other people's libraries. That question remains the same whether the tax is $1.50 or $1,000 per taxpayer.

As explained in that comment, most of library funding is already local, and in the case of Alabama, you pointed out that Alabama effectively got $0 from the federal government for 2024.

Puerto Rico got $2,147,080 and they're not even a state.

And I don't want to encourage local and regional brilliance, I want to encourage people paying for the services they enjoy instead of getting other people who don't enjoy them to pay for it.

How many other distinct topics are you willing to let others obligate you for $1.59 each before you consider it a not-small price below the level worth arguing over?

Ten line items? Hundred? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Naturally, each and every one could use the same defense- it's only a few pennies or dollars.

In time, though, you reach the total government spending / # of residents, which in the US is somewhere north of $30,000 per citizen... or roughly $60,000 per taxpayer, going by your taxpayer estimate versus rough American population.

I would counter-argue that this is the slippery slope argument/fallacy. That I definitely can make a choice that of the various $1.59s line items on a receipt, I want this particular line item to stay $1.59 and/or even increase it. Now let's say the IMLS was not just dismantled but replaced by something similar to the Pittman–Robertson Act I would support it even more.

What?

A slippery slope argument rests on the premise that you aren't already at the bottom of the greater warned costs.

I am not arguing that if you spend 1.59 on libraries, you will spend 60k on more. I am noting you are already spending 60,000.00 on more if you are a taxpayer, of which 1.59 on libraries is one of many, many such 'small' costs.

The attempt to separate 1.59 from 60,000.00 is simply budgetary salami slicing. Who takes issue over one slice of salami?

well, seeing that I feel strongly about this 1.59, then yes I am doing budgetary salami slicing, and yes I am taking issue over one slice of salami. I think it's this exact freedom with which American citizens can feel strongly about their slice of salami that makes Americans great. We can argue over everything, we will fight (reasonably and without violence) over anything, and that's fine. I think this salami is important and I'm speaking up about it. I feel strongly that this slice of salami has great public utility, that decreasing this slice is not good for the American people, now or in the future. I do not feel that America is at the bottom of the warned cost as I can envision far worse use for America's money in far greater amounts (special military operation in Canada, let's say) leading to way more slices of salami being sacrificed than I am comfortable with.

And thus you have abandoned the small-quantity defense, in favor of a qualitative difference defense.

Which is fine. But this is still a retreat from the bailey back to the motte, and still doesn't answer the question you tried to dodge.

Yes, I realize that now and that my initial 3 points weren’t enough. I will now attempt to not dodge your question. I don’t know what the maximum number of line items is. I probably start to get dizzy when things add up to about a few billion dolllars. But I do know my minimums. And that if comparing between two slices of salami to cut, yes I would look for the qualitative difference. And I would find my a way to cut $266m somewhere else than the IMLS without a replacement.

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