site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   34016 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 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.

Fascinating. And I agree about the key at the end. In fact, I would say a key function of party leaders (esp the Speaker) is to insulate their members from having to go on the record with hard votes. Vulnerable members have nothing to gain from voting either way -- against it and they'll anger the MAGA base, for it, and they'll alienate everyone else.

There's as much to learn by what isn't being voted on. For example, no one is voting on a Federal abortion ban these days.

For example, no one is voting on a Federal abortion ban these days.

That's not really insulating members from their own votes. Those who would vote for it would gain by voting for it. Those who would vote against it would probably gain by voting against it -- but they would lose by the issue being brought up at all.

Also note that the current ascendant faction of the Republicans is on record as being against a Federal abortion ban.

I'm not sure about that, especially when confronted with a primary/general split.

There's as much to learn by what isn't being voted on.

Just want to highlight how good of an observation this is - no matter who is in power.

One could even measure how duplicitous legislators are based on how much they campaign on something vs. how much they legislate on it. Would sure be a disappointment if the golden goose that serves as a war drum for your supporters was a problem that was suddenly solved by coherent legislation.

Tinfoil hat: there's little incentive for American conservatives to create any legislation around immigration. Action through executive enforcement, while not as effective as legislation and reform, will keep the base energized and conservatives in power. What's the equivalent for the progressives? Taxes on the rich?

Tinfoil hat: there's little incentive for American conservatives to create any legislation around immigration. Action through executive enforcement, while not as effective as legislation and reform, will keep the base energized and conservatives in power. What's the equivalent for the progressives? Taxes on the rich?

People used to say abortion. Ironically, they went in both directions: Democrats didn't want to codify Roe (somehow) because they liked Republicans threatening it and giving their voters a reason to get out, and that Republicans loved fund-raising on it and wouldn't want the enemy mobilization that would follow if they actually caught the car. And then...

Ultimately, I think both explanations are naively cynical and don't account for practical difficulties you face when actually legislating and are a bit optimistic in attributing the gridlock and decay of Congress to the master plans of legislators. I don't think they're acting.

I think there’s definitely some acting, but also just getting a huge group of people to agree enough on something in the absence of coercion is really hard. US whips are impotent, and congresscritters are fairly free to vote however they please.

It’s hard enough to get 5 people to agree on dinner plans. Imagine trying to get 538 people to agree on spending $200 billion on something!

Have I misunderstood the over-turning of Roe-versus-Wade? I thought that it was over-turned on the basis that abortion was a matter for States, not the Federal Government. So a Federal abortion ban would be struck down by the Supreme Court; no point voting for one.

Roe v. Wade was a decision of the supreme court, not a law. They decided that it was not appropriate for them to make such a decision, therefore returning the issue to individual states.

The six conservative justices are more consistent than the liberals, but that does not make them perfectly consistent.

The ruling was that the 14A didn’t create a right. That had the effect of leaving it to the states, but it was not the holding.

I don’t know if a federal abortion ban would be voted down, there’s never been a chance to litigate that.

I thought that it was over-turned on the basis that abortion was a matter for States, not the Federal Government.

No, it was overturned on the basis that abortion was not protected by the federal constitution and therefore was a matter for the federal and state legislatures (or for the state judiciaries if they find that abortion is protected by their constitutions), not for the federal judiciary.

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