site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   38917 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 24, 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.

My impression of historical US-Euro relations is that while realpolitik was always an important component, there was a sense of shared ideology (liberal democracy) and cultural history that strengthened the bond relative to, say, US-Egyptian or US-Indonesian relations. We were the "free countries," we were the "Western nations," and until recently, we were "Christian nations." However, mass immigration, multiculturalism and its consequent curtailing of civil liberties, and militant secularism and progressivism seem to have severely weakened those identies in Europe and made room new identities to assert themselves.

I see US-Euro relations decaying to the more transactional relations that the U.S. has with culturally alien countries. European countries making noises about cozying up to China sounds bizarre when operating under the assumption that the old identities hold, but it actually makes sense if Europeans now simply view China and America as two ideologically-alien superpowers who offer different sets of incentives and obligations and who can be played off one another for benefit.

I think a lot of the outrage about "European ingratitude" from the American right is caused by right wingers failing to realize that European 2025 is not the Europe of 1950, or even 1990. Many Europeans seem to already view America as ideologically alien and thus view the relationship as totally transactional. It would be like expressing gratitude to your ISP for providing internet service after you sign a contract and pay your bill. Trump's more transactional approach aligns with this new reality, and so it's probably a good thing -- unless you're an American progressive, in which case, since you hold religious beliefs in common with European progressives, you probably view this development as needless division and infighting amongst enlightened nations that diverts time and energy away from pushing back the ever-encroaching forces of ignorance and oppression. That said, I sense a rift between American and European progressives as well, mostly in complaints from more traditional European socialists who see American "woke" progressivism as an irrelevant distraction from material problems and/or a form of American political and cultural imperialism. So perhaps even the bonds between progressives on either sides of the Atlantic are fraying and will not be strong enough to maintain a US-Euro relationship beyond the merely transactional.

This explanation is certainly too pat, and there's more nuance to be explored, but do you think this is more or less the direction in which things are heading?

In Sweden we had a mass shooting where a man was kicked off welfare and then decided to kill 10 people at a welfare office before finishing himself. He screamed "not everyone should work" before letting off a few rounds. His energy seems to reflect the European attitude on paying for a military.

Currently the attitude in Sweden is beyond bizarre. John Bolton would be considered a tankie right now. Their, is just fanatical worship of the US military industrial complex combined view of any being in opposition to the US as a fundamentally evil. I have never before seen people justifying the invasion of Iraq and Vietnam at the scale happening now. The average Swede has been turned into a Dick Cheney, except they only see the world as good vs evil.

At the same time as they want complete and utter American domination of every corner of the world they are shitting all over Americans and talking about boycotts. To make matters worse, most people can't give any legitimacy to any other view point. There are true believers in the neo con project, people who are fundamentally evil and those who are brainwashed by Russians.

The attitude in the UK is similarly bizarre. The government, other blob parties, and supportive institutions have become foreign policy hardliners in a context where those same governments have, at every opportunity over the last 30 years, adopted policies that weaken the UK's ability to fight against a peer power. And I don't just mean in strict military budget terms here. They can increase the military budget right now and this won't improve the situation because the current circumstances make effective utilization of a larger military budget impossible. I mean policies like:

  • Outsourcing. Relying on foreign, China-centric supply chains for industry is silly.
  • Green energy. Tanks and jets don't run on batteries. Frack to Fuel Fighters.
  • Legally empowered NIMBYism. How are you going to build the factories and bases for all this?
  • Judicial power and rulings. Why build a munitions factory if you'll get sued over rare spiders? Why fight Russia if you'll get charged for shooting them?
  • Weapon Bans. Legal access to firearms would both mean more experienced citizens and a potentially stronger occupation resistance. Instead the government is floating bans for kitchen knives with pointed ends.
  • Nationalism. Nobody has found a way to make effective modern armies other than nationalism, and usually ethnic nationalism at that.
  • Lockdowns. Shrinking the economy over a cold does not win wars.
  • Immigration. This does not turn into military manpower. More British Muslims joined ISIS than are in the British Army.
  • Two-tier laws. Dispossession of the demographics most likely to serve in the military is a terrible idea.
  • Coffin dodgers subsidies. Why fund pensions or the NHS at the expense of the 20 and 30-somethings who are actually going to fight your war?

A UK that has a small military but is prepped and ready to re-arm and oppose Russia is a UK that looks very different from the UK we actually have. More importantly, it would be an image of the UK that our current government would despise. Cynically, the government isn't genuinely interested in defence, they just see sabre-rattling over this as a good way to go after domestic dissent.

That IRA court ruling is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. I'm not exactly an expert in The Troubles but... wow.

Indeed, and all the sabre rattling and criticism of what it claims is right-wing extremism by the current government must be understood in the context that this is also a government that not only funds extremism in support of it's supposed enemies, but is legally obligated to do so by it's own institutions.

Much of this is, however, just two-tier. A hypothetical opponent perceived as right-wing, like Russia, probably wouldn't be protected in this manner by our courts. But good luck defending Taiwan from Communists, to name one example.

More British Muslims joined ISIS than are in the British Army

Do you have a link for that?

The UK seems to be in a really horrible and sad spot. Personally I would leave. From banning encryption, kitchen knives, to spending the money from an outrageous tax system on bringing in Muslims who don’t care a lick about western society. The weather isn’t even pleasant!

Is this was happens in Europe though? You go from turbo hivemind cucked socialism and then going to swing aggressively right into strong ethno-nationalism and provoke WWIII? History would make that seem so

spending the money from an outrageous tax system

Taxes in the UK are higher than in some low-tax US states (although places like Texas have very high property taxes, while the UK has almost none, particularly on expensive homes), but the difference with high tax US places like NYC or SF is pretty minimal.

Texas has very high sticker property taxes, but in practice established homeowners don't pay sticker price- there are a bevy of exemptions, and only people wealthy enough for second homes and landlords(and the low functioning, but most of those don't buy homes) have to pay the full amount for more than a year or two. Texas property taxes are still high but they aren't high enough to reach blue state levels of taxation.

It does appear that UK taxes are only slightly higher than the US. The real extreme outliers are in continental Europe.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/tax-burden-on-labor-oecd-2024/

But there's a big difference. UK taxation effects lower income people. For example, in the UK, all income above about $60k is taxed at 40%. And VAT is 20%.

In the US, on the other hand, a gigantic proportion of tax revenue comes from high income individuals. About half of federal income tax is paid by people making more than $500,000/year.

The UK, having few high earners compared to the US, is forced to extract eye-watering tax rates from middle class people. The UK tax system is both less progressive than the US, and there are fewer rich people. So regular people get squeezed hard in a way they don't in the US.

I doubt that’s true when factoring in VAT.

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