site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   32598 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

Purity spirals are driven by individuals taking an opportunity to improve their own position.

Say there's somebody in your volunteer radical labour union who is an excellent organizer: he's likeable, outgoing, genuinely committed to the cause, and works a blue collar job where he actually puts into practice the organization's techniques and principles. (This is in direct contrast with most of the membership, who are grad students LARPing as workers.)

This guy is accused of mild sexual misconduct. Is the organization best served by a. immediately expelling him, b. investigating the incident then deciding what to do, or c. trying to find a compromise that ensures he can continue to do his good work?

Answer: what's best for the organization is totally irrelevant. Somebody is going to take position A. They're going to win, because the organization has no defenses against it - this is a question of good and evil, not of tradeoffs. Anybody on side A wins and gains a crumb of status and maybe power; anybody on side B or C loses.

Part of the reason that the radical left is so susceptible to this is that everybody has the authority to start this process, but there is often nobody with the authority to say "we're not doing that".

In an actual blue collar environment, this kind of accusation would merit a 'so what?' and the opportunist advocating for A would wind up with egg on his face. But grad students upset they don't make as much as a panda express manager are different.

The people who actively push for position A may be doing so for cynical status jockeying reasons, but I think the organizational response that enables their success is an understandable, if unfortunate, reaction to decades of people using position C to argue for no consequences for immoral behavior ever. When people hear that Comrade Bob was accused of sexual misconduct, they immediately think of Harvey Weinstein and Father Jim, panic, and do whatever they can to avoid accusations of conducting their own cover-up. In that context, arguing for nuance is typically going to fail. Now, as those scandals fade into the background, there may be a chance to successfully push for position B. It seems to me that this is starting to happen, though that is admittedly just a gut impression.

When people hear that Comrade Bob was accused of sexual misconduct, they immediately think of Harvey Weinstein and Father Jim, panic, and do whatever they can to avoid accusations of conducting their own cover-up.

That reminds me of something I was reading last week. There was a student athlete at Stanford who committed suicide, which is sad and terrible. The reason? She was due for a disciplinary hearing: bad Stanford, I guess. News articles then went into what happened, and they usually framed it as she was facing the hearing because she spilled a cup of coffee on someone.

Hmm. Digging deeper, she had thrown a hot cup of coffee onto another student's face. Okay, this is getting juicy. Maybe he deserved it? What did he do? Well, the news articles breathlessly reported he had been accused of sexually assaulting someone.

Finally, I find out the root cause: he had kissed one of her team members without consent.

These are all obvious questions to ask, and the actual story is pretty straightforward, a series of banal student hijinks that ended in tragedy. But the sheer unwillingness for any news articles to simply tell the story is a result of the dynamics you mention. No one wants to be the bad guy and say "well actually, Stanford didn't brutally murder an innocent girl to help cover up a rapist's crimes," because if you do, you're all of a sudden part of the rape cult, opening you to attack and hurting your career advancement.

Often the offense is something less consequential, like "is not fully up-to-date with pronoun etiquette" or "works with fossil fuels".

They're going to win, because the organization has no defenses against it

You expel from the organization everyone that takes position A with the "Everyone that doesn't believe in due process is not someone we want here"

That might work if the organization was sovereign. It almost certainly isn't.

The government has a huge say in how things like sexual harassment is dealt with because it determines if the organization has taken all reasonable steps to avoid a hostile environment. If Obama says that sexual harassment is a violation of rights of female students and creates a hostile environment you have a strong incentive to take all claims seriously.

It will not look good come the lawsuit if you've been firing the very sorts of people who will be zealous about preventing said harassment and assault, even at the cost of a few good people.

Who is "you"?

SJ is very trigger-happy and has weak leadership; there is for the most part no "you" that actually has the security in power to take the locally-disincentivised action and actually make the mob follow along (rather than simply being replaced).

Sufficiently decayed institutions will have kangaroo courts as part of their statutes. Given enough time, A becomes "due process".

The whole fights in the FOSS community about CoC enabled entryism were about just this.

In this specific sort of example, the cheat code that people discovered was claiming that due process that includes things like trying to figure out the facts of the matter based on evidence was misogynistic when applied to women accusing men of bad sexual behavior. This, I think, was an instantiation of the larger principle that "lived experiences" described by people who were categorized as "oppressed" were incontrovertible. It seems to me that more and more people are growing wise to this vulnerability, which makes me wonder what the next cheat code will be, to circumvent inconvenient things like the sort of due process you're talking about.

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