site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   31617 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

If not, how is telling the contractor "The planning board is going to approve this project" a lie? Where is the falsehood? Where is the deciet?

First, because the planning board was not going to approve it at the time that was said. Second, and more importantly, you left out the very clear deceit I already cited: the developer is not in fact "just waiting on paperwork", he is engaged in manipulation to apply leverage to the planning board so that they will approve it.

Nobody said anything about a preexisting agreement.

It is very clearly implied, as otherwise the contractor would not go ahead.

They said an agreement would be made and that statement was correct. An agreement was made.

Yes, only because of the lies the developer told. That doesn't count as an accurate reporting of facts.

Your hypothetical scenario is not some clever bargaining flourish. It is a dirty lie that only a scumbag would engage in. I have pointed out the express and implied untruths that the developer says. If that isn't enough for you to call it a lie, then I lack the means to persuade you I guess.

Yes, it's all lies. Big mean Trump is fooling the innocent construction company and permit offices of NYC, all of whom are completely non-corrupt innocent idealists seeking only the best for everyone.

Back in reality, trump is a NYC real estate developer the same as all the others. Everyone involved knows the game. Trump didn't make the game this broken, NY politicians did. Trump has always been critical of them, and engaged in theatrics to expose them - e.g. writing a book, public clashes with Ed Koch over what later became Trump skating rink, etc. This is what led him to enter politics.

What would you have preferred he do? Be the only honest real estate developer and go bankrupt cause nothing gets built? (Similarly, I don't fault Soros for breaking the pound.)

What would you have preferred he do? Be the only honest real estate developer and go bankrupt cause nothing gets built?

Yes. "Everyone else does this too, it's how the game is" is not and has never been an excuse for immoral behavior. You are responsible for your conduct, no matter the circumstances you find yourself in.

What’s immoral about finding an end run around retarded awful laws and rules?

Lying, and not following the law, are both immoral without a sufficiently good reason. "I want to make money" isn't remotely good enough of a reason to lie and break the law.

‘Shit needs to get done and these kinds of adversarial boards aren’t doing what they’re supposed to’

That's closer. But if you think anyone circumventing the planning board process is actually doing it because they want to better society, and not because they want to profit, I have a bridge to sell you. A fine property in the middle of the Mojave desert.

What’s wrong with that? Circumventing the planning board is a good deed that deserves remuneration.

First, that is not a good deed. Fixing the regulations would be a good deed. Going around them is (somewhat) bad on its own merits.

Second, even if it were good, doing a good deed only carries merit if you're doing it for its own sake. Doing it to line your pockets means you don't have any moral credit for doing the good deed. And since this isn't a good deed to begin with, that means that we're now talking about doing a bad deed for selfish reasons, which compounds the badness.

More comments

Perhaps, but the issue here isn't everyone else doing it, it is specifically the government and system that enacts and enforces the rules. If that system doesn't play by its own rules, then playing by those rules will only hurt you. You can not expect a system without enforced rules to produce any other result, because even if you play by the rules others will not.

We aren't talking about "does this system produce good outcomes", though. We are talking about "is it wrong for someone to do bad things because that's what the system incentivizes", which IMO it is.

What I'm saying though is that it isn't the people who are wrong, it's the system.

They are both wrong. The system is indeed set up poorly if it incentivizes people to circumvent it. But the people who circumvent the system are still wrong and deserve to be penalized for their actions in some way.

I agree, but it's like a slap vs a bullet. Your perspective of it seems highly susceptible to anarcho-tyranny. How do you repair a system that punishes you for trying to repair it? That's usually how this kind of thing starts - the unscrupulous don't give a shit about laws of course, but to get the scrupulous to ignore the law you need an already corrupted system.

How do you repair a system that punishes you for trying to repair it?

Nobody said anything about that. Trying to repair the system looks like pushing to get the laws improved so that the system works better. There's no reason to expect one would be punished for that.

Following the rules as-written as opposed to the rules as-enforced doesn't make you a paragon of morality; it makes you a chump.

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