site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   22591 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 2, 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.

I do not have anything to say apart from that the Western Right is totally fucked.

I think it's easy to see infighting and assume it's a sign of weakness. It's only a sign of weakness if it isn't handled properly. If Trump publicly "wins" the fight, it consolidates power around Trump as The Sole King. (And I think this is what will happen - Musk is definitely a live player but I don't think he has the proper levers in this situation).

Over the longer term, Trump consolidating power into the party could prove to be a weakness, simply because he's not going to be around forever, and after that the party could devolve into infighting. So perhaps the Western Right is in trouble over the long term. But this was always a possibility, and getting some of that infighting "worked through" now while Trump is still around to dictate winners and losers might actually help the right get some of that infighting sorted out before, making them stronger in the post-Trump stage.

Elon calling for a party that supports the 80% of Americans is sort of funny - balancing the budget [inevitably: by nuking Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare] might be good and necessary, but it's not an 80% position. Socially conservative and yet fiscally liberal is actually the closest thing there is to an American consensus, and right now Trump occupies that high ground.

Only some 15% of the American population currently receives retirement benefits from SS and some 20% are on Medicare. It doesn't seem unreasonable for the rest to be in favor of large cuts here due to their unsustainable nature and limited likelihood to benefit much more people due to the looming insolvency.

Three word rejoinder: sunk cost fallacy.

Words fail to convey how deeply black-pilling this particular subject has been for me. Not only is cutting entitlements generally unpopular in the abstract, cutting SS specifically would, I think, be generally seen as a massive breach of the American social contract, given that it is commonly represented not as an entitlement but as a retirement fund for the elderly. I've spoken with a lot of people over my decades about the inevitability of Social Security's demise, and even run into a few that understand that it's always been a massive Ponzi scheme, but the vast majority of them have a level of emotional investment in getting their fair share of SS that precludes any productive dialogue or planning to avoid the inevitable shortfalls. The common refrain that I've heard when talking to people is that the FICA taxes they've paid are, "their money," making me a pedantic asshole if I point out that no, what you've paid is a tax and what you'll receive if you live to retirement age is an entitlement, and moreover, there have been several Supreme Court cases that reaffirm the actual underlying legal reality of SS. I have actually heard the, "it's my money," refrain even from the very person (whom I admire greatly) that introduced me to ancap philosophy and is generally anti-government!

So while I'd agree that what you're proposing isn't unreasonable, I don't think that reason has a thing to do with it.

A lot of Americans who aren't part of those groups will be taking care of those groups if Social Security and Medicare are cut.

They will have the choice of how much to care for them. Also, cuts doesn't mean abolishment. Balancing the budget for SS and Medicare means less care, not no care, especially if combined with a mild tax increase, which seems it could be sold through everyone having to do "their part".

You can see how running for office as "that insurer who denied you the care that you wanted" might not be popular even if it is fiscally smart.

It might be popular with the 80% that are paying.

We don't have to speculate, though, we know that's very literally an 80/20 issue in favor continuing to fund social welfare programs.

Are you armin ferman? Also what makes you think that?

He is indeed my long lost, blackpilled, twin brother.

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