site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   32424 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 14, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Then you recognize that we have not in fact been operating under "rule of law" previously?

Do you believe that enforcing "rule of law" here will increase its enforcement elsewhere? If so, why do you believe that?

If you do not believe that, why is one form of selective "rule of law" preferable to another?

Violations of the rule of law don't cancel each other out - us "three genuinely principled civil libertarians" don't "tap the sign.*

Law is a social construct, and as a social construct it depends on consensus and common knowledge for its function. It works if people believe it works, that "rule of law" actually functions in some reliable fashion.

Undermine that belief sufficiently, and people stop believing in it, and "rule of law" stops functioning in specifically the way that you are now observing: people stop honoring appeals to the rules, because they've seen those rules bent or broken in too many other cases and so no longer trust them.

I do not accept your appeals to the rules, because I have long since observed that my appeals to the rules are systematically ignored. I do not expect the rules to protect me when I need them to, so I have no incentive to expend effort or value to ensure the rules protect you when you need them to. I too used to make appeals to "rule of law"; I did so for many years. Now I don't do that any more, even when the law is purportedly on my side, because I understand that it is pointless.

Enforcing the law is costly. People bear the cost willingly when they believe that all bear it equally. When they no longer believe this, they generally stop being willing to bear the cost.

Law is a social construct, and as a social construct it depends on consensus and common knowledge for its function. It works if people believe it works, that "rule of law" actually functions in some reliable fashion.

Hence violations not cancelling each other out.

I do not accept your appeals to the rules, because I have long since observed that my appeals to the rules are systematically ignored. I do not expect the rules to protect me when I need them to, so I have no incentive to expend effort or value to ensure the rules protect you when you need them to.

Is "you" in reference to me, specifically, or a rhetorical device?

Hence violations not cancelling each other out.

The claim is not that violations cancel each other out. The claim is that sufficient violations invalidate the construct, by destroying the trust necessary for it to operate. "but it's the rules, you have to follow the rules" is not a workable answer to "no one else is following the rules, why should I?"

Is "you" in reference to me, specifically, or a rhetorical device?

It's a reference to the arguments you're presenting here, irrespective of any personal details or history of yours beyond these arguments in particular. You specifically are arguing in support of our existing social systems. I am pointing out that the actual history of how those social systems actually operate seems to badly undermine your arguments.

Surely the only way to increase the enforcement of the rule of law is to... increase the enforcement of the rule of law? I very much understand and support advocating for the full rule of law in all spheres of life, but if you want to do that, you should, well, do that. Which would include advocating for it here. It's not hard.

No, this just ends up with rule of law being selectively used to constrain those who accept this argument, while not constraining actions against them. That's what I mean by "chump".

So I understand "they defected so we have to defect". That's what you have to do if you're stuck in a Prisoner's Dilemma with a repeat defector.

But the question then is - how do we get out of this mutual defection spiral?

I think the usual solution among actual prisoners is referred to as a shanking.

But the question then is - how do we get out of this mutual defection spiral?

In so much that there are no coherent parties, then the people want to escape the defection spiral clearly and credibly signal their separation from those still interested, including the breaking of political alliances, even if it leads to their own political disempowerment as a faction.

In so much that there are coherent parties involved, the party that started the defection spiral signals credible intent via no longer pursuing a defection strategy, upto and including accepting rollback of previous gains at personal cost.

But the question then is - how do we get out of this mutual defection spiral?

What makes you think there is a way out?

Firstly, because nothing actually lasts forever, so I think that where there's a burden of proof, it's on people asserting that nothing can possibly change.

Secondly, because the only way to effectuate change is to first believe that it is possible. So it is usually for the best to operate on the assumption that positive change is possible.

To your first point, yes, there are ways out of the spiral, just not good ones. The obvious one is for one side to effectively clear the other from the board, achieving total political victory. A lesser version of the same thing is to return to the status quo ante, where the left's job is to win and the right's job is to meaninglessly protest and eventually give in. What there is not is any way to return to a co-operate/co-operate equilibrium with the current factions, since at least one side has made it clear it will not co-operate.

Secondly, because the only way to effectuate change is to first believe that it is possible. So it is usually for the best to operate on the assumption that positive change is possible.

As far as I can tell the only thing that this belief is used for is to give Red Tribe a reason to keep respecting the institutions which have been corrupted against it. Which they want to do, because Red Tribe is -- or perhaps WAS -- largely conservative and inherently respects institutions.

In theory there is a way out, and it's for Blue to not be defectbot and to credibly signal it's not defectbot and for Red to believe them. But that's not going to happen. Blue claims it is Red who is defecting, that they aren't defecting at all and no there are really good reasons they have gay marriage everywhere but people in blue states don't have gun rights, and no really we didn't defect on that immigration compromise and a bee really is a fish etc etc.

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