site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   32572 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Core things like that in Quebec many things must be in French, from store signs to school classes.

I'm not sure what the 1A argument is, though. Moreover, I have a factual question. Do such laws prevent store signs from also having other languages, or do they just mandate that French must be present? If the former, I could perhaps see a 1A challenge that they are restricting speech. If just the latter, it's not so clear to me. There is some compelled nature to the speech, but the standards there are different, especially if it's just commercial regulation or gov't-run schools. So yeah, I'd really appreciate if anyone could put out at least a sketch of the argument.

I'm not sure what the 1A argument is, though.

It's a law that controls what people say and write.

Do such laws prevent store signs from also having other languages, or do they just mandate that French must be present?

It can have other languages, but French has to be more prominent.

If just the latter, it's not so clear to me. There is some compelled nature to the speech, but the standards there are different, especially if it's just commercial regulation or gov't-run schools. So yeah, I'd really appreciate if anyone could put out at least a sketch of the argument.

You and I are talking. You are my employee. That means you can demand that I speak French and it is enforced by the government, so the government is controlling what I say. I cannot send an email to you in English if you have asked that I speak in French to you.

I'm a doctor and you're my patient. The government can force me to speak French to you if you want.

I'm an engineer and you're my client. The government can require that I speak to you in French.

I want to hire you for a job. We both speak English. We both want to speak English. The employment offer letter has to be in French.

I have a business and I want the name of the business to contain an English word. The government will force me to translate it to French.

You know what, I was going to go point-by-point and discuss some of this, but I'm going to wait on that. What I'd like to wait for is to hear you say anything at all about 1A law. I just don't see any of that yet. None of the keywords. Nothing about content-neutral/content-based, viewpoint-neutral/viewpoint-based, nothing about the compelled speech doctrine and its extent/limits, nothing about the standards for commercial speech, etc.

The first amendment prohibits state governments from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech, unless it falls under a few exempted categories of speech restriction, such as laws against obscenity, defamation, and threats. Forcing people to speak French is not in one of those categories. So you explain to me why those other concepts are relevant and why this is a case where abridging freedom of speech would be allowed.

abridging the freedom of speech

Why is this an abridgment of the freedom of speech? (Generally, you could reach to one of the various well-established explanations of what counts as abridgments of the freedom of speech, some of which I mentioned.)

Controlling what language people speak is abridging freedom of speech. People are not free to use whatever language they want to use.

I am not hearing a single reference to any established 1A doctrines.

Quebec has a language police which goes around and makes sure that the French letters on storefronts and signs are bigger than the English.

Sure... weird to our sensibilities, but, uh, what's the 1A violation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska

Not necessarily a first amendment violation in this case, but still unconstitutional.

That is a law prohibiting the use of a language. Do they do that?

Yes. They specifically have a law prohibiting students who do not have a parent who was not taught in English at a school in Canada from being taught in English at public schools.

Cite?

Requiring French, in this instance, presumably disallows English; ergo, this is a speech restriction.

I don't think that can be merely presumed, which is why I'm asking. My sort of uninformed sense is that they simply mandate that French must be there, but don't disallow English with it. Perhaps that's wrong, but so far, no one has even come out to actually claim it at any level stronger than your presumption.

They disallow English in employment offer letters and promotion letters.

More comments

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