site banner
PaperclipPerfector  30d ago (text post)   33444 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This will be a dry post: I'm laying out my thoughts over the tariff discussions of the last few days as succinctly as I can.

Dangers to tariffs:

  • Tariffs that are higher than other countries can incentivize domestic companies to move abroad to gain access to cheaper inputs. It has similar negative incentives to a high corporate income tax (the latter of which was reduced in 45's term to be more in line with the rest of the world).
  • Danger of a trade war loss. If you don't have market power (attractive consumer base or exports) then a trade war is likely to end in a loss. Costs will be passed to citizens. The US is rather unique in having outsized market power.
  • Protectionism can lead to complacency in the citizenry. Lack of competition breeds inefficiency and lethargy. The workforce and economy needs to be sufficiently diverse to maintain competition.
  • Less efficient global distribution of resources.
  • Tariffs are distortionary in a way that (flat) income tax and universal sales tax are not.
  • Less foreign investment (assuming trade deficit shrinks). A trade deficit means US dollars go abroad: those dollars have to come back somehow, usually in the form of investment. Losing this foreign injection of capital is a double edged sword: a benefit is that it will make investments cheaper for domestic savers (cheaper stocks, cheaper housing). This will benefit younger generations who are buying the cheaper stocks and housing at the expense of retirees.

Economic/Political Benefits to tariffs:

  • If you are in a position of strength, it can distort the global economy in your favor. Companies may wish to domicile in your country (especially if you have low corporate income tax rates) in order to access your consumers and/or workforce.
  • Supply chains will become more intra-national, improving national security.
  • If you are in a position of strength, it is a useful foreign policy tool.
  • If everyone else is doing tariffs except you, then the economy is already distorted; and implementing reciprocal tariffs may "un-distort" the global economy.
  • If you want to raise revenue and you don't fear a trade war, tariffs may have less of an impact on GDP as other methods of taxation (eg, income tax).

Ideological benefits to tariffs:

  • Less interconnected global economy leads to less systemic risk (anti-fragile). The revealed fragility of supply chains during Covid shocked me, and made me realize we have traded efficiency for instability. I wrestle with this on a more local level here: https://pyotrverkhovensky.substack.com/p/texas-roadhouse.
  • Destruction of the Bretton-Woods post-war hegemony.
  • Reciprocal tariffs punishes other nations for constantly hitting "defect" in an iterative "trade" game. It could force the world towards a better equilibrium.
  • Tariffs are explicitly allowed in the Constitution, income tax had to have an amendment.

Other thoughts:

If you are going to do protectionism, tariffs are better than subsidies.

Tariffs will change the relative cost of goods, but being a tax they should be net deflationary rather than inflationary.

Sanctions are like extreme "reverse" tariffs; if Russia and Iran are any example energy-rich countries seem to weather sanctions well.

Okay, let me try too.

Dangers and downsides to having the US air force firebomb Kansas City:

  • A lot of people will die in agony.
  • A lot of housing and means of production will be destroyed.
  • Refugees will increasing the housing crisis in other cities.

Economic benefits of the USAF firebombing Kansas City:

  • Housing prices in KC will be much lower while it is an uninhabited wasteland
  • It will incentivize other US cities to prefer non-burning building materials and invest in air defense, which will both increase disaster preparedness and be a boon to the some industries.
  • It will open up avenues to redevelop the city.

Ideological benefits (for various ideologies):

  • It will drastically lower the amount of immigrant crime at ground zero.
  • Over a period of a decade, it will likely lead to lower GHG emissions.

In general, firebombing is much more acceptable than nuking because of (a) the lack of nuclear fallout and (b) it does not contribute to the normalization of nuclear weapon use.

In conclusion, there are good economic and ideological arguments both for and against firebombing random cities, and experts in law, strategy and economy disagree if it is net beneficial or not. The fact that every administration before president Harris has refrained from burning down KC does not mean that she is wrong to do so.

Generally best to not make Swiftian style proposals here. It makes it harder not easier to have open discussions on a topic.

This seems needlessly bilious. Yes, it is possible to make a cost/benefit analysis for literally everything. No, nobody is talking about bombing Kansas City, which is why you're using it as a reductio ad absurdam.

The point I was trying to make, unsuccessfully, was that in my world model, an economic superpower trying to fix their trade deficit by applying tariffs proportional to that deficit would be considered a terrible idea by a broad majority -- basically everyone except for "destroy all corporations" radical leftists, and lizardman's constant worth of outliers (some de-growthers, some sourvereign citizens, some fringe isolationists who want to see America 100% autark, even if that means giving up on oil and coffee, et cetera).

Naturally, here at the motte we have a proud tradition of taking fringe ideas far out of the overton window serious, and I am fine with that. I just feel that "starting a global trade war will actually go great" was plenty discussed here already, and I would much rather discuss the next fringe idea, perhaps "legalize marital rape" or "build a sub-aquatic habitat in the Mediterranean Sea for the Gazans". In my mind, the fact that someone has just announced a fringe idea as the national policy of the US should not make it less fringe than if a random poster had posted it here. I am not a fan of the forced neutrality displayed by the original poster. If party A wants the living room thermostat set to 280K, and party B wants it to be set to 680K, setting one's preference to 480 Kelvin is not neutral, but just about as insane as 680K.

I grew up vaguely left-wing and peace-y. Then Putin happened, and suddenly I found myself having to defend the North Atlantic Treaty and mutually assured destruction. Now Trump has taken a turn towards economic authoritarianism, and I find myself holding up the torch for libertarianism -- not because I think taxation is theft, but because I recognize that capitalism leads broadly to better outcomes than all the alternatives which have been tried.

I think your model of how people think is wrong. I would guess:

  • Proportion of population intellectually pro tariffs: 2%
  • Proportion of population non-intellectually pro tariffs ('countries like people are stronger when they build for themselves' / 'my job went to china' / 'why do we have all this chinese junk instead of sturdy American stuff'): additional 10%
  • Proportion of population tariff-curious: additional 10-20%

Noting that I don't expect these to be purely right or left wing positions. People's 'wing' is an alliance and various with which aspect of their identity is most politically salient. The total constituency for Trump's tariffs is probably 30% max - I don't expect them to be popular unless they turn out to work, but they're popular enough that Fox etc. can't dismiss them out of hand and neither can commenters here.

I would also suggest that going from discussion of tariffs to discussion of firebombing local cities is a bit like an anti-abortion activist saying, 'well, if we're discussing murdering innocent people, let's do the Holocaust next! Pros/cons of gassing all the Jews?'. It doesn't come across as a method of engagement, it comes across as a method of ridicule, and it's not likely to lead to a good conversation.

That's the first time I've been accused of being too neutral! Let me try to be less so: Income taxes are bad. We have had them for over a century. Tariffs are bad. We have not had them to this extent for nearly a century. Yet in a world in which Trump EO'd the income tax to zero rather than implementing tariffs there would be the same hand-wringing, from the same people, who are currently saying tariffs will destroy the economy. The hypocrisy irritates me.

Trump EOing the income tax to zero without cutting defence or entitlement spending would be far more destructive than the tariffs - it would be full Weimar/Zimbabwe.

The income tax is a bad thing that we tolerate because the spending it pays for is good and at certain margins it is less bad than borrowing.

Yet in a world in which Trump EO'd the income tax to zero rather than implementing tariffs there would be the same hand-wringing, from the same people, who are currently saying tariffs will destroy the economy. The hypocrisy irritates me.

Hypocrisy present only because of your head-canon isn't really hypocrisy. Certainly I'd be quite happy if Trump EO'd the income tax to zero (though alas he wouldn't get away with it)

I can't tell if this is a parody of chat GPT or a legit prompt response and I love it.

Oh, it was generated by a squishy neural network, but in retrospect I might have had the chatGPT bullet point format in my subconsciousness.

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