site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22d ago (text post)   32375 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.

How should Elon Musk's role in the Trump administration and reactions to it make us update on boogeymen like George Soros/Koch Brothers/Yo Mamma!/Whoever and the rhetorical use of such boogeymen? If you can openly buy power like this, is buying "shadowy" influence more or less likely? Or should we not update at all, because Musk and Trump are so extremely weird (n=1, of course)? What does being a combination Musk-phile and Soros-phobe or Musk-phobee and Soros-apologist (are there Soros-philes?) say about someone?

For the last couple years of the Biden administration it was unclear who if anyone was actually exercising presidential authority.

Any complaints about Musk's "undue influence" must be read with that in mind.

No one who was silent while a bunch of unnamed White House staff weekended at bernie's can credibly claim that they are worried about "Musk's influence", or the "dignity of the office". They are obviously just mad at Musk/DOGE for threatening thier sinecures, and at Trump for stealing a base and denying them thier first female president yet again.

Okay but that goes both ways. If you weren't silent about unnamed white house staff being in charge, you ought to also be loudly exercised about a billionaire who's bought his influence.

Why?

Trump was talking about hiring Elon to take a machete to the executive branch the same way he did twitter all the way back in October.

Am I supposed to be holding the fact that he followed through on that against him?

In contrast the Democrats and Legacy-media felt compelled to conceal Biden's decline from the public and tar anyone who called attention to it as a fabulist.

Am I supposed to be holding the fact that he followed through on that against him?

I see this a lot. Trump campaigns on doing something. Then he does it. People are blindsided and demand that Trump supporters be equally shocked and regretful of voting for him.

Probably because during the campaign (and now, for that matter) it was routine for Trump defenders to pretend that he wasn't going to do it, that it was just big talk, take him seriously not literally, etc... Encouraging people not to believe Trump was (and is) standard practice.

"Of course he's not going to do it, that's ridiculous" -> "He said he was going to do it, what are you complaining about?"

It was a delight to be on the other side of that tactic for a change

"For a change." - this being a deviation from Trumpism's usual scrupulous honesty.

Yes

"Of course he's not going to do it, that's ridiculous" -> "He said he was going to do it, what are you complaining about?"

Like “abolish the police” and “end whiteness”?

It’s mottes and baileys all the way down.

The police and whiteness remain conspicuously intact.

Not for lack of trying, arguably.

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