site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16241 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 19, 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.

Ah, dammit. Alright, third time's the charm:

What do you think?

Same as you: https://www.themotte.org/post/1913/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/327871?context=8#context

I read it [Scott's post] and my reaction was pretty much the same kind of loss-for-words exasperation I feel when my wife tells me that I cannot possibly have expectations of her, don't I know she has excuses? Why, Scott, you have a stay-at-home wife, two kids, a nanny, several friendly families living in the same block, and then you feel a need to also hire two babysitters on top of all that? Yeah, taking care of kids is exhausting. No shit, Scott - did you think getting kids at age 40 wouldn't be taxing? Two of them at the same time to boot. And still, his complaints in the face of that many resources thrown at the problem smells of...I don't know what to call it without throwing out schoolyard insults like "sissy" or "pussy". Methinks Scott complaineth overmuch. Or maybe I'm just jealous of his "privilege", be that wealth or whatnot, regardless of whether it's earned or otherwise.

Man, I work full-time and then I parent all the rest of the time except for maybe about two hours after getting my daughter to sleep. If Scott's numbers are correct, then I put in more parenting time than his stay-at-home wife. Which isn't to say that I'm the better man; far from it, my life is a mess. But seriously. They're doing something very wrong if the two of them can't hack it without hiring an entire fireteam of helpers.

And still, his complaints in the face of that many resources thrown at the problem smells of...I don't know what to call it without throwing out schoolyard insults like "sissy" or "pussy". Methinks Scott complaineth overmuch

I am of the opinion that a reasonable society has some expectations of behavior and will self-police. Verbal judgement and sneering is not pleasant, but is also shockingly mild method for self-policing. Insults? It is raison d'être of political cartoons.

Only problem with schoolyard insults is the schoolyard part. Kids pick targets unjustly, and sometimes kids get too nasty about it -- either it doesn't stop at insults or it becomes a self-reinforcing rumor mill. Sometimes slight sneering is entirely deserved and proportional, but becomes unfair when the target has not the ability to either self-correct or cope.

Man, I work full-time and then I parent all the rest of the time except for maybe about two hours after getting my daughter to sleep. If Scott's numbers are correct, then I put in more parenting time than his stay-at-home wife. Which isn't to say that I'm the better man; far from it, my life is a mess. But seriously. They're doing something very wrong if the two of them can't hack it without hiring an entire fireteam of helpers.

Amen to that. Your schedule sounds much like my own and it makes his sound completely absurd.

Ahaha much appreciated. And yeah, as I said in my own comment I very much agree:

I also lost a lot of respect for Scott! It sucks. I definitely have some ressentiment for him and Caplan because they're both rich famous writers, and while I don't put a TON of effort in my blog, it would be nice to be rich and famous hah.

Ultimately though I think this is the classic problem with a lot of rationalists, that we were talking about with the poly stuff earlier last week. They are extremely privileged in all sorts of ways, and go on to assume that everyone else is just as privileged or idiosyncratic. They basically just have a very poor theory of mind for even other rationalists a standard deviation closer to normal than they are, let alone an actually "normal" person.

I hate to be bitter and negative about this sort of thing, but man I'm starting to understand the progressive urge to scream "EAT THE RICH!" This sort of complaining despite being EXTREMELY, like top .15% privileged, makes me quite angry.

Well, FWIW, I don't begrudge Scott his privilege. May he enjoy it thoroughly and for a long time yet. But it is very "good times create weak men", in a way.

it is very "good times create weak men", in a way.

I don't think this is true. Scott is just spending his time specializing in a different skillset. That's why he is earning exceptionally well in the first place and why he is an exceptionally good writer.

Agreed - Scott is not a weak man (and nor are his formative experiences a central example of "good times"), unless you define "weak" in an exclusively martial way that causes your society to lose everything, including wars (which are won with logistics, which means they are won by REMFs). If you believe in the cycle, Scott is, personally, at the "strong men make good times" stage.

Will being raised with this much privilege make Scott's kids weak? Too early to tell, but the men who built the British Empire are not a point in favour of "too many nannies and tutors makes weak men."

Too early to tell, but the men who built the British Empire are not a point in favour of "too many nannies and tutors makes weak men.”

That’s because if you were in the English upper class, you turned eight and got packed off to an incredibly hard-ass boarding school for 10 years that would make modern military basic training look like daycare. “The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eaton”

That’s because if you were in the English upper class, you turned eight and got packed off to an incredibly hard-ass boarding school for 10 years that would make modern military basic training look like daycare. “The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eaton”

The Victorian public school becomes sufficiently effective to attract actual aristos somewhere between Arnold's reforms at Rugby (1830's) and the implementation of the reforms under the Public Schools Act (1860's). Before that the part of the British upper class which was a functioning warrior elite were raised by tutors and governesses, or sent to sea around age 12 if they were going into a naval career.

The point I am trying to make here is that the thing that (may - this is disputed) make rich kids soft is excessive pampering, whereas the thing that we are discussing in the thread is excessive attention by hired professionals. You can hire someone to pamper a kid, but you can also hire someone to stretch them.

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