site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31675 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 17, 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.

I couldn’t agree more with @zeke5123a below, 50 experiments is always better than 1. Some state governments will be more competent than others. Some will be more ‘woke’ or ‘anti woke’ than others; they may be correlated or inversely correlated, who knows? But at least they will exist.

For the same reason, I hope some lib state enacts an NHS style healthcare system in the near future (presumably with some caveats to prevent out-of-staters from using it). Not because I want to see it fail, but because I don’t see why it shouldn’t be tried at a state level.

More controversially, I feel the same is true about mandatory ID cards and hate speech laws, by the way. If Vermont wants Euro-style hate speech laws, I really don’t care. Plenty of states will oppose them. The same is true for gun control, for civil rights, for gay marriage, for religion in government.

Let the feds handle foreign policy, defense, intelligence, some interstate policing and - at arms length via the fed - monetary policy. Nothing more.

Always better? Do we really need 50 different DMVs in our laboratories of democracy? Anyway, that's the system we have for education, it's mostly run at the state level. This matt yglesias post discusses what DoE actually does, I wanted to do a toplevel post about it.

It is a terrible idea to have some states have bad education and other have good. That’s why we had the government setting a universal standard for everyone.

  • -16

There isn't any valuable metric that we can conclusively say has improved under the DOE's tenure.

Yes, blue states should be prevented from destroying their own education systems. That’s not what the federal DofEd does.

More controversially, I feel the same is true about mandatory ID cards and hate speech laws, by the way. If Vermont wants Euro-style hate speech laws, I really don’t care. Plenty of states will oppose them. The same is true for gun control, for civil rights, for gay marriage, for religion in government.

As a red-triber in a very blue state, who is often willing to support federalism even when it harms his interests, I draw the line at my basic rights as an American. I shouldn't have to leave my home and my family's legacy here to secure them.

I want to agree, but that's the same thing leftists will say when they try to make every red state allow abortions and teenage gender changes.

It’s true. Ultimately it comes down to a question of what those basic rights are.

They are not arguing in good faith and no amount of accepting compromises to what should be yours will get them to accept compromises in what they want.

I never understood the liberal and leftist antagonism to this. It's an obvious compromise, fits right in with their ideas of multiculturalism, Diversity Is Our Strength, etc., and if you're so sure your ideas are better than others', this arrangement will make it plainly obvious soon enough.

I can only interpret as a deep insecurity that letting the experiment run will actually disprove, rather than prove their ideas.

Progressivism is a universalist religion; "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". They don't want to experiment with letting states ban gay marriage or allow firearms for the same reason Christians don't want to experiment with letting states allow abortion or reinstate slavery; it is wrong, and it is evil, and it must be cleansed from the face of the Earth by fire and steel.

As @Capital_Room put it:

There is a certain kind of person for whom moral disapproval and the drive to intervene are one and the same thing, inseparable. To them, a lack of a burning need to stop a thing is proof that you don't actually disapprove of it. It's the classic stereotype of the D&D Paladin played badly: "see evil, smite evil." They are constitutionally incapable of shrugging and saying "none of my business." And the Blue Tribe is full of them.

Consider every missionary of an evangelizing, expansionist faith who has set out to convert the heathen — by fire and sword if necessary — because it's their duty, it's the right thing to do, and it's for the heathen's own good. If you have the One True Faith, the true set of Universal Human Rights, the Objectively Correct Morality, then you have a duty to spread and enforce it everywhere you can.

Why fight the Red Tribe? Because if you don't, you are complicit in every wrong they do. If you let the Red Tribe keep being transphobic rather than try to stop them, then the blood of every trans kid in a Red Tribe area who commits suicide is on your hands. Like Kendi says, you are either actively anti-racist, or you are racist. It's one or the other. You are either fighting evil, or you are evil.

Why does the Blue Tribe hate the Red Tribe? Because it's in their nature to hate anyone who fails to share their values. Because this need to be a moral busybody, a crusader, a Social Justice Warrior, is a core characteristic of the Tribe, woven into their culture (and probably also a non-trivial amount of genetic predisposition).

Why does the Blue Tribe continually attack the Red Tribe, trying to force them to convert, or otherwise eliminate the "Red culture"? Because they're fundamentally incapable of not doing so. They can't stop themselves, and thus they will never stop.

I don’t think kids in Alabama deserve bad education that puts them behind their peers because their parents aren’t very smart

  • -10

Poor, minority heavy states do badly at education. It doesn’t have much to do with policy it’s about what they have to work with.

And I don't think kids in California deserve to be chemically castrated because they gravitated to the wrong kind of toy. Would you rather have my views applied locally or globally?

Do you have any evidence that kids in California are being chemically castrated?

  • -10

Anyone who's on puberty blockers is being chemically castrated. It's the same drug that's used for both.

Okay, well, that’s not true, but you do you.

  • -16

Do you have any evidence that it's not true? Like I said, they use the exact same drug, with the exact same purpose (sex-hormone suppression).

Also, answer my question: do you want my views applied globally or locally?

I, too, would like a source for that.

A casual search suggests that the standard for chemical castration is “MPA”, or maybe “DMPA.” At least that’s what California law specified. If I understand it right, that’s a progestin (progestogen??) similar to what’s in the combination birth control pill.

Wikipedia claims the preferred blockers are “GnRH agonists” and maybe antagonists. It mentions progestogens to say they might be cheaper, and the main source is about precocious puberty, not gender identity.

In case Wikipedia is shamelessly misrepresenting the issue, I looked at a couple other sites. Neither suggests (D)MPA or any progestogen.

More comments

In 2024, Alabama had a higher average literacy score than Maine, Vermont, Delaware, Texas, and California, to name a few. And the same or higher percentage of students at basic reading level. Who is getting a bad education because of dumb parents?

Can you link the study that says that?

  • -10

https://www.newsweek.com/math-reading-scores-us-states-2022836

1 second of googling.

The rules of this forum are….? Suggestions?

  • -18

Demanding rigor in a rhetorical cage match is a fatality. OP's statement was clear and google-able at a copy/paste, first-result level. The off-handed claim about Alabama sucking didn't help either, some around here might call it a dog-whistle. Anyway, save your battles.

Claim: it's dangerous for different states to adopt different standards from each other.

  • Would state A risk an invasion by an entire state-B population of underachieving morons--with no economic, political or militaristic boundaries between states as protection?
  • When do states have the right to fight each other?
  • Should we expect that all of our elites will eventually be foreigners because we've dumbed down our back bench?
  • How do you prevent bad localized ideas, un-scientific methods, and fads from chewing through the populace?
  • What are the controls?
  • What happens to national culture?
  • How will we get people to continue to drink milk?
  • What will we do if we suddenly realize we've made a bad national decision? Dept. II: Edu-harder?
  • How will we recognize or measure the impact of losing the department/relying on individual states?
  • Is it all just money--or lack thereof?
  • How will the universities--and by extension small communities supported by such schools--survive without a government college grants program? Is it like moving a highway?
  • Does all of this work to raise the prestige of the Ivy's, Stanford, etc.?
  • Will it be a boom-time for community colleges and State universities?
  • Like...worst of all...what if it works?

Here's a convenient summary of the National Center for Education Statistics data on National Assessment of Educational Progress. To clarify, this does not include adult literacy, just students in grade school. Which I think is a better view of current education standings than adult literacy.

I never understood the liberal and leftist antagonism to this.

It's pretty much entirely historical as a result of Jim Crow. Localism in the UK is weakly left-coded, although in practice it is generally supported by the party out of power in Westminster at the time. In Spain localism is strongly left-coded, but it is right-coded in Italy.

In the cases of the US, Spain, and Italy there are obvious stories about who the noisiest opponents of the centre are and how that determines the partisan valence.

That said, ID cards is a really stupid thing to push to the states (except in so far as they run the offices administering a federally determined policy, which is what happens in Germany) because it is so tied to immigration policy, which is a federal responsibility for good reasons.

Healthcare policy is run at a subnational level almost everywhere - even in the UK Scotland and Wales have their own NHSs.

It's pretty much entirely historical as a result of Jim Crow. Localism in the UK is weakly left-coded, although in practice it is generally supported by the party out of power in Westminster at the time. In Spain localism is strongly left-coded, but it is right-coded in Italy.

I agree that localism (much like free speech) is often used cynically, but that's neither a typical response, nor an actual argument against localism.

"Muh Jim Crow" also doesn't quite explain it either. Are you saying American anti-localists will change their mind if you constitutionally take that issue off the table?

Healthcare policy is run at a subnational level almost everywhere - even in the UK Scotland and Wales have their own NHSs.

The world consists of more than the UK and the US.

” Muh Jim Crow" also doesn't quite explain it either. Are you saying American anti-localists will change their mind if you constitutionally take that issue off the table?

No - what I am suggesting operates at a much more emotional level than that. The Civil Rights movement is the heroic epic of the American left, so in the stories American lefties tell themselves the heroes are centralisers and the villains cry “States’ Rights”. Whereas the heroic epic of the Spanish left is resistance to Franco, so in the stories Spanish lefties tell themselves the good guys are calling for autonomy for Catalunya and the Basque Country while the villains cry “Todos por la patria”.

The world consists of more than the UK and the US

I know. Having checked my research, there are more countries with centralised healthcare policy than I thought, but it is still generally devolved.

  • France is centralised
  • The German system is heavily decentralised, but the Krankenkasse are not organised on State lines, so technically counts as Federalised
  • In Italy healthcare is run by the regions
  • In Spain healthcare is run by the autonomous communities
  • In Denmark and Sweden the ground rules are set nationally but the healthcare system is actually run at County level
  • In Switzerland healthcare is run by the cantons
  • In Poland the national government and the regions share responsibility for healthcare in a way which appears to be incomprehensible to everyone except Polish bureaucrats
  • In Canada healthcare is run by the provinces
  • Australia is centralised
  • In India healthcare is run by the states.

Because people negatively impacted by their opponents’ ideas have primary moral consideration.

I can only interpret as a deep insecurity* that letting the experiment run will actually disprove, rather than prove their ideas.

I don't think so. Rather the opposite really - true believer leftists are very secure in their belief of the correctness of their ideas, to the point where experiments are in fact immoral, since people will end up suffering from the wrong solutions, and unnecessary because the good leftists already know the correct solutions.

Does this sound boo-outgroup? I'm serious, as an ex-leftist who spent decades in a leftist bubble and still lives next door to it. Experimentation may seem like a golden compromise to someone with enough epistemic humility, but epistemic humility is completely absent from the water the left swims in. They know. They know what the problems and the solutions are, and experimentation can only be worse than doing the obviously correct thing.

There's also a practical, political reason not to allow this - they have long-marched through most institutions; why ever give up now?

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