site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16626 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.

Domestic labor is broadly unaffordable. When I was looking for a nanny the going rate was $30-40/hour. Between unemployment and demand I'd expect the market to sort this out, but the underclass is apparently comfortable enough, and regulation enough of a hindrance, that it doesn't happen. The only people I know with full-time nannies are single moms who make hundreds of thousands per year.

Yes, and your mother took care of you when you were sick. But if you are sick and go to a hospital and have nurses looking after you, they don't do it on the same basis as "well my mom gave me chicken soup and aspirin when I was ill, anyone can do this, why pay the big bucks to have someone just give me soup and aspirin?"

But people go to the hospital for a different set of problems than they're fed chicken soup by their mothers, as evidenced by the fact that children with mothers still end up in the hospital at times.

With childcare it does seem like we're looking for simple skills: I'm sure some people would want nannies that are teaching their kids algebra, but there's clearly a demand for "keep them fed and clean and away from electrical sockets" level of childcare.

The bigger issue is I think trust: the actual tasks are simple but having someone reliable enough to do them every time, not cut corners, and not take opportunities to enrich themselves with access to the family home is a little more difficult when we're trying to bring costs down.

You don't want the type of people who are unemployed to take care of your kids though.

The people you want taking care of your kids are unaffordable since they've better options. The market can't really solve this for the middle class. The best you can do is usually hiring teenage girls from middle class+ families, but they can't do that full time for obvious reasons.

There's a lot of middle ground between "unaffordable except for the hyper rich" and "just skip your starbucks sometimes and you too can have it."

E.g. once a week for four hours is ~50*4*35 = $3500 7000/yr - considerably less than many people spend on vacation or dining out. I think Scott's point is more that he was failing to acknowledge that even that level was possible for him. Even if you drop that to once a month, it's still a real quality of life change to be able to recharge somehow without the kid as needed.

Of course there's something to be said for living near family and not needing to pay for this, but that's a harder option to make possible for many people than budgeting for occasional help.

E.g. once a week for four hours is ~50 * 4 * 35=$3500/yr

I'm getting $7000, which is almost 10% of the median household income. (Also how the heck can people be making that little?)

Also how the heck can people be making that little?

By having less and lower quality stuff than you.

It's more that I pay something like $70k in rent and my house is... acceptable, in an acceptable neighborhood. Granted this is a very nice town to live in and commutable to Silicon Valley, but still.

Shitboxes in the ghetto are, by world standards- to say nothing of historical standards- perfectly livable, and most towns are far cheaper than yours even for nice houses in nice neighborhoods.

I'm getting $7000, which is almost 10% of the median household income. (Also how the heck can people be making that little?)

I don't understand the question? I make $16/hr plus commissions which amount to about $1/hr, so approximately $17/hr, and work 4 days a week in eight hour shifts for a total of 32 hours. That works out to $2,176 a month or $28,288 a year. My yearly expenses are mostly room and board, for which I pay $1,300 a month or $15,600 a year. Let's add a few more thousand for things like gas (about half a tank at Costco twice a month), car insurance (legal minimum), etc. and round up my budget to $20,000 a year. That still leaves me with a healthy surplus to add to my bank account every year.

I don't know what a "household" is, but if I was married to a woman who made a similar amount as me, that'd bring us up to about $60,000/yr, and of course we could share the same room.

I make less. But then, my annual expenses, including housing, come to around $20,000 per year. It helps living in a low cost of living area.

Oops, corrected. 10% is a harder sell, but the general point stands. Knock it back to every-other-week for 5% then.

(Also how the heck can people be making that little?)

Yeah. Slightly less crazy if you look at HCoL, e.g. 95k for California or 141k for San Francisco, but of course then your nanny cost would go up. I suspect $35/hr will do nicely in most of California, but haven't looked into it.

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