site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   23936 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

naked attacks on suburbanites by urban enthusiasts

If you like the suburbs so much then don't go to Manhattan, nobody is forcing you to do so.

Someone here recently criticized drivers for "selfishly trampling" on this shared infrastructure by driving their kids to school. You have the opinion that these roads are not for use by suburbanites.

A tiny portion of my taxes are spent on roads. Having paid my taxes, I feel entitled to use of public roads and entirely unsympathetic to people saying my use of public roads is actually bad.

Every now and then I get roped into visiting the nearest major city for some reason. No one can rightfully tell me to keep in the suburbs or block my use of public streets.

And I notice the contempt and sometimes hatred new urbanists have for suburbanites. I'll not pretend anti-suburban policy is neutral and just coincidentally harms me. They declare me prospering to be a negative externality and propose suitable Pigouvian taxes to correct the problem. They cannot make me want to live in an apartment downtown or ride a train to work. But they could possibly make me too poor to live any other way.

A tiny portion of my taxes are spent on roads. Having paid my taxes, I feel entitled to use of public roads

Unless you actually live in New York City itself you don't pay for the upkeep of the roads in Manhattan since most are owned and maintained by the NYC Department of Transportation, and the remainder are operated by the state. Why should New Yorkers be forced to subsidise New Jersey suburbanites driving in to use their New York amenities without contributing anything? If you live elsewhere in NYC the objection is more reasonable, but the avenue for those grievances to be aired should be via state and local government, not the federal DoT.

And I notice the contempt and sometimes hatred new urbanists have for suburbanites

Some maybe do but that doesn't make the policy any less sensible just because a minority have an irrational basis for supporting it.

They cannot make me want to live in an apartment downtown or ride a train to work.

Fine. No-one is going to make you. But don't expect everyone else to have to cater to and subsidise your preferences and negative externalities. New York should be run for the benefit of people who live in New York, not for people who hate urban living and want to freeride off the amenities of a great city.

But they could possibly make me too poor to live any other way.

This is just silly and amounts to 'public policy should be geared towards me being able to enjoy the benefits of living in proximity to a great city without a) having to contribute anything and b) being allowed to make life worse for urban residents without paying any compensation'.

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