site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   31589 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

  1. That's an editorial, not a news article. The author is not a journalist. He may be a former government official but he doesn't write articles every day for a living.
  2. You are trying to debunk his opinion, and good for you. But that says nothing about the quality of his writing. Of course many people have different opinions on this issue, and an editorial is specifically about giving one man's personal opinion. It's specifically not supposed to be reporting of the facts.
  3. It's easy to criticize someone else's writing but it's harder to write something of your own that surpasses it.
  4. Claude's response is simply the basest stinkiest ai slop drivel you can find, and it's topped off with the usual ai sycophancy at the end

The proposals offer valuable ideas worth consideration, but implementation would require careful phasing, priority-setting, and recognition of practical constraints that the current analysis largely overlooks.

For typos:

Here are some: https://www.rd.com/article/hilarious-newspaper-typos/

No dates or links to the articles. I'm sure typos happen but these could be decades old for all I know. One of the examples is even a classified ad, and in case you don't know, those are not written by journalists.

quora

Vibes with literally not a single concrete example.

  1. Pezzulo has written dozens of long-form analytical articles for major newspapers. He is BETTER than a regular journalist, he actually achieved an office of mild significance. He does not write about lost dogs in regional papers or the fake tits of celebrity no. 10023 like most of them.

  2. The quality of factual proposals is inseparable from their prudence.

  3. Claude's response surpasses Pezzulo because it's a more realistic strategic plan and because it doesn't make any major blunders.

  4. You clearly have not read many government reports if you think that's drivel. I assure you that people are being well paid to produce this kind of stuff without the ameliorating factors of any good points whatsoever.

literally not a single concrete example

I can't give you a concrete example, only my friend's anecdotal experiences working with journalists and my anecdotal experiences spotting missing words in newspapers. They really aren't that clever and have been getting worse.

Pezzulo has written dozens of long-form analytical articles for major newspapers.

A real journalist writes over a dozen articles every month.

He is BETTER than a regular journalist

At some things not others. Writing is not one of those things.

The quality of factual proposals is inseparable from their prudence.

False. You can actually write a well written and well researched work arguing for both the right side and the wrong side of an argument. Haven't you ever taken English class and not gotten to choose the side of the argument you have to write for? Getting the bad side doesn't mean you throw up your arms and just say that your essay is gonna be bad.

Claude's response surpasses Pezzulo because it's a more realistic strategic plan and because it doesn't make any major blunders.

Nope. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

You clearly have not read many government reports if you think that's drivel.

I am, in fact, autistic enough to read EIRs for fun. And the rote boilerplate in them is more valuable than your claude drivel because it's not pretentious and actually serves a purpose in this world, however stupid that may be.

I can't give you a concrete example

This thing happens so often that I can't provide a single example of it happening.

At some things not others. Writing is not one of those things.

Go take a look at the Daily Mail and come back to me on that.

Getting the bad side doesn't mean you throw up your arms and just say that your essay is gonna be bad.

Obviously an essay arguing for the wrong side of the argument will be worse than an essay arguing for the right side of the argument, ceteris paribus.

And the rote boilerplate in them is more valuable than your claude drivel because it's not pretentious

Nope. That's just, like, your opinion, man. And it's a pretty bad one if you think that characterizing government boilerplate as non-pretentious is the way to go.

This thing happens so often that I can't provide a single example of it happening.

I'm not going to trawl through newspapers earmarked for recycling, looking for typos. I am not a copyeditor for News Corporation. Rest assured that it happens a lot.

Here's one, they managed to mix up entire pages: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-25/daily-telegraph-accidentally-publishes-smh-pages-in-its-paper/11046252

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