site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   32490 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.

I doubt banking would go away overnight even if AI can do the “pls fix”ing when models suck and powerpoint logos are a few pixels misaligned.

At the higher levels of seniority, banking is fundamentally a sales/relationship business. Perhaps midlevels and juniors just transition over to a more private wealth management type workflow, less modeling/slide-jannying but more outreach/cold-calling. Maybe, *clutches pearls*, 100-hour work-weeks could even be rendered obsolete. Then again, it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than an end to sweaty hours for investment banking analysts.

It’s not limited to banking: for better or worse, people prefer dealing with other human beings, to have someone they can blame if/when things go wrong trust.

In recent months I have spoken to almost all smartest people I know about the coming crisis. Most are still largely oblivious; “new jobs will be created”, “this will just make humans more productive”, “people said the same thing about the internet in the 90s”

And maybe they’re right rather than oblivious (or both right and oblivious), that nothing ever happens and it’ll turn out to be a nothing burger.

Even if they’re wrong and white collar jobs get mopped away, it’d be a good excuse for me to retire early—it’d be a relief in a way. If I get bored, who knows, I might even Learn a Trade or Trades to at least be able to take care of some or most of my own stuff, but perhaps also so I have tangible, marketable skills (although the value of which would be diminished by other former white collar workers doing the same).

If AI causes civilizational collapse or goes all skynetty, I guess I’ll just die then. At least in death I’ll no longer have to be faux-friendly to HR or be subjected to coworker noise pollution, unless Hell really exists.

If you have the money to retire early, why do you need an excuse to do it?

I think the worry for many people is that UBI or whatever given to the hundreds of millions of unemployed people around the world might only be enough for eking out a bare bones living and having no enjoyment of life ever again because the rich and the owners of the AIs hoard all the wealth.

I agree with most of this, but there's a difference between FIRE, lean FIRE and fat FIRE. For most people who can retire early and survive indefinitely, it probably makes sense on the margin to work a bit longer and save more.

(If the person reading this is 75 and has twenty million in the bank, just quit your job already)

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