site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   31722 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.

Aside from any legal issues, it drives me kinda nuts that they're trying to shut this program down, because I think our over-dependence on cars and excessive catering to drivers is a horrible thing that ruins our cities.

Right, we should go back to horses. Except, you know, the whole problem of being buried in manure, which is why NYC originally enthusiastically adopted the automobile.

As for the legal objections, I'm not a lawyer, so of course take this as you will. But what does Duffy mean by "...the imposition of tolls under the CBDTP pilot project appears to be driven primarily by the need to raise revenue for the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) System as opposed to the need to reduce congestion."?

The proponents of this program, including Hochul, have been quite clear about this.

The "cordon pricing" thing... I read an argument made that all the bridges from New Jersey into New York have tolls. Does that mean that NYC is legally required to build a toll-free bridge, or drop tolls on one of those bridges, as it's effectively cordoned?

No, because tolls for bridges have separate statutory authority.

I mean, sure, I imagine Trump/the FHWA has the authority to shut this down, if they want to. I don't see what actually requires them to pull this particular interpretation, though, and the whole thing seems like a petty "fuck you" to New York (as well as advanced car-brain virus), for a program that is very effective and pretty darn popular in NYC. It seems like the people who like it least are those who drive in from New Jersey, and even then, a lot of people are more frustrated that there isn't a good public transit option

Congestion pricing is a big "fuck you" to drivers in the first place. And if it's a "fuck you in particular" to drivers from New Jersey... well, that's actually a legitimate interstate commerce nexus. Neither side's motives are pure here, but the Trump administration has the better statutory justification.

Right, we should go back to horses. Except, you know, the whole problem of being buried in manure, which is why NYC originally enthusiastically adopted the automobile.

This isn't like eliminating cars in Dallas Texas.

NYC has robust subway, railroad, and bike infrastructure. Busses would also be a lot more useful if they weren't stuck behind cars all of the time.

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