site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   35097 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Last week, in the context of the Ukraine war, we talked about conscription.

We also talked about the possibility of European countries like France or the UK sending "boots on the ground and planes in the air", to Ukraine to help secure a peace deal.

And finally, as usual, we talked about migration and demographics in Europe.

Here's an interesting tweet at the intersection of all three of these topics:

It is so obvious that as soon as European nations commit troops and get themselves into a war - they will trigger a domestic crisis.

Why?

Because CITIZENS will be forced to fight, and illegal migrants will not.

Imagine the civil unrest this will cause when young men start dying.

The West is walking into a disaster. I don't understand why the media and political class can't see it.

I have to agree. And I never thought about the issue that way. Since the Napoleonic era, European countries have relied on nationalism to mobilize huge armies. Even if the state was totalitarian, as in Russia, there was still national identity to motivate the troops.

A two tier society, as currently practiced in much of Europe, is fundamentally hostile to the young white men living inside it. Society may be able to tolerate injustice in taxes, housing, and criminal law, but will they tolerate their sons being sent to die on a godforsaken battlefield in the Ukraine, while migrants continue to loiter on street corners and shopping centers? I think this is a bridge too far, even for Europe.

The army of the UK has about 70,000 trained members and 30,000 reservists. Of these, it's questionable how many could be deployed. 30,000 maybe? This is a pretty small number in the context of the Ukraine war, less than 10% of the Ukrainian or Russian forces.

Honestly, I don't think it will ever come to conscription, for the simple reason that it can't. The state would lose all legitimacy. But, for British citizens, I think it's fair to ask. Under what circumstances would you risk your life for your country? Would you die to defend this UK like your great-grandfathers died to defend the UK of the early 20th century?

They could get people to volunteer by paying them. You ever think of that?

There are too many gibs to have an underclass of people desperate enough to fight for money. In Russia the money is life changing but that sum would be less than your gibs Europe.

what does this mean?

Being poor in a Western European country is still a better deal than receiving a generous salary to fight in a bloody war. The standard of living is too high for that tradeoff.

There are more than enough white British, French and German zoomers who would go to war for, say, €200k in cash.

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