site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   22504 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 21, 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.

That’s not what @FCfromSSC was talking about though. He was (in my perhaps incorrect reading) folding in murders that resulted from a reduced police presence over the next few years as ‘BLM deaths’.

It seems pretty clear to me that the reduced police presence over the next few years was a direct result of BLM, given that reducing police presence was an explicit goal of the movement. The increase in murders was an easily-predictable result of the reduced police presence. I am not claiming that BLM rioters directly killed 8.5k black people in the course of rioting. I'm claiming that they were bad at predicting the results of their actions, and their actions led very predictably to a lot of black people being murdered. Civil war would be much, much, much, much worse than BLM in this regard, not least because it is not obvious that it could be stopped once it got going. The direct violence would kill quite a few people, but it is easy to predict that the breakdown in social structure could easily kill a whole lot more, and in turn create lots of incentives for more ideological direct violence.

Lowering the minimum wage changes a whole lot of things, and it's hard to predict all the effects. Maybe it causes 10,000 bankruptcies. Maybe it also lets 1,000 businesses hire 10 additional workers each. How do these things balance out? Crippling the policing system is not like that; the effects are immediate and severe. Likewise for the economy. Likewise for the power grid, water treatment, food distribution, banking, the legal system generally...

I'm not sure why communication is failing here, so let me try again in simpler terms:

People like the idea of political violence because it seems like a straightforward solution to their perceived problems. They do not understand that while you may get to decide to start the violence, once it's started the other side has to agree to let it stop. They do not understand the fragile nature of our society, and how bad things can get on short notice if certain bedrock assumptions like "my job will pay me on time" and "there is food in the fridge and more in the grocery store" and "the lights turn on when I hit the switch" and "the police will come if I call them" no longer obtain. These assumptions are not derived from immutable features of the universe. The police can go away. The power can go out. The trucks might not show up to stock the grocery store. These things can happen. People can make them happen, if they believe it to be to their advantage, and a great way to convince them of that is to make them feel that they and their families are in danger if Something Drastic Is Not Done.

I did not and do not argue that all of this will happen. My argument is that it is much more likely to happen than people who talk about Civil War generally appreciate, and further that it is much more likely to happen to the talkers than they appreciate. It is, believe me, very easy to fantasize about your side putting the boot to the hated outgroup. It seems to me that such people, myself included, would be well-advised to spend a few cycles contemplating what it would be like to get the boot, rather than merely give it.

The police can go away. The power can go out. The trucks might not show up to stock the grocery store. These things can happen. People can make them happen, if they believe it to be to their advantage, and a great way to convince them of that is to make them feel that they and their families are in danger if Something Drastic Is Not Done.

I mean, the problem is I can personally take active steps in my life to overcome those obstacles. They are difficulties on a level I can immediately understand and take practical steps to remedy. I think to a lot of people those problems are a lot more tolerable than the problems created by unaccountable bureaucrats and judges with alien moral values exploiting arcane legalisms.

I did not and do not argue that all of this will happen. My argument is that it is much more likely to happen than people who talk about Civil War generally appreciate, and further that it is much more likely to happen to the talkers than they appreciate.

Okay, fair enough. I thought you were over-egging it at the start but I can agree with this.

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