site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   8054 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 28, 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.

What if our fundamentals are exactly backwards?

New to The Motte, looking for constructive, critical discussion.

Here's an example of what I mean by a "fundamental":

Every economic system that has seemed credible to most people since the dawn of civilization has revolved around the legal establishment and safeguarding of property through the concept of ownership.

But what is ownership? I have my own ideas, but I asked ChatGPT and was surprised that it pretty much hit the nail on the head: the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.

This has been such a consistently universal view that very few people question it. Even fewer have thought through a cogent alternative. Most people go slack-jawed at the suggestion that an alternative is possible.

Here's something from years back, before I'd zeroed in on the perverse nature of ownership:

Capitalism makes sense to the paranoid who don't understand the concept of sharing. Capitalism is the application of KFR (kidnap for ransom) to resources (and human beings as "human resources"):

  1. Usurp rights over resources (physical or intellectual, materials or people or property) by fiat and, if necessary, by fraud and/or force

  2. Kidnap (abduct) said resources (e.g., put them into captive situations with no alternative)

  3. Hold hostage

  4. Demand ransom

  5. Release upon payment

You'll recognize the capitalistic counterparts as:

  1. Title/Ownership
  2. Acquisition/procurement
  3. Storage/warehousing
  4. Pricing
  5. Sale

Capitalism is psychopathy with a makeover.

Anyone want to brainstorm a viable alternative to "ownership"?

/images/17459352527399495.webp

the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.

I would not say that. I would say that ownership is the legal right to do what you want with something. That can be depriving others, but isn't always. For example, I value ownership of my house because if I wish to run a network cable to connect the upstairs to the basement, I can. Or if I want to paint the walls a certain color, l can do that regardless of what others think. You can certainly frame this in terms of exclusion (any positive rights can be reframed as "you're making someone else tolerate you doing that", really), but I don't think that's a good way to frame it in this case.

You need to do some research on that. Just a couple of counter-examples. If you rent something, you do not have the legal right to do what you want with it. Your usage becomes contractually limited and, for any practical purpose, non-existent for the term of the rental period (or lease, or whatever).

The only right that always makes it ownership, the absence of which guarantees it's not ownership, is the right of deprivation.

But when you rent something out, you also no longer have the right to deprive the renter of it (for some pre-specified period of time), in much the same way as your own usage is limited.

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