site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   28862 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.

Breaking into Congressional buildings is an extremely different situation than protesting and even rioting.

Why? It's political violence either way.

Political violence directly or indirectly, charitably, aimed at the congressional capital where legislators are actively working is quite different than rioting in a random city. Even if the rioters are attacking city hall or police stations, the degree is significantly greater.

Acting as if they are equivalent is ridiculous and playing games with “political violence.” It’s like saying slapping a politician you don’t like the exact same as murdering them, because it’s “political violence” either way.

So you're just going to say it's obvious and not actually explain why? Come on.

Is it mere geographic proximity? Are you saying one is more likely to work? What?

I could understand if congressmen were assaulted. Hell, going to people's homes might actually be an escalation. But it's just rioting on some official building we're talking about.

It’s like saying slapping a politician you don’t like the exact same as murdering them, because it’s “political violence” either way.

I can explain the difference for that one, only in one case is the politician removed from play and unable to do anything anymore. Which is how Japan's left wing coalition once collapsed.

I don't really see that clear a difference between causing property damage in fed buildings or police precincts except who has to pay for it.

All I see is people with no power breaking things to make themselves look more intimidating than they actually are. I think your degrees are more aligned to the targets of the intimidation or the symbolism thereof than its actual severity or destabilizing effect.

So you're just going to say it's obvious and not actually explain why? Come on.

Is it mere geographic proximity? Are you saying one is more likely to work? What?

The symbolic and indeed legal status of say, Pittsburgh downtown versus the Capitol of the United States are indeed quite different, and I do think it's obviously true. There are specific laws about threatening Congress, crimes on federal land, etc. Even if there weren't, the implicit statement the rioters are making is vastly different. One is random wanton destruction, one is destruction aimed specifically at the ruling body of a nation.

I could understand if congressmen were assaulted. Hell, going to people's homes might actually be an escalation. But it's just rioting on some official building we're talking about.

Congressmen were in the building that was raided. That counts as attempted assault at least, in my book. If the rioters had gotten to the elected officials, I don't doubt there would've been some violence.

All I see is people with no power breaking things to make themselves look more intimidating than they actually are. I think your degrees are more aligned to the targets of the intimidation or the symbolism thereof than its actual severity or destabilizing effect.

Not sure what you're saying here. I agree that rioters with no power are breaking things - I see it more as a sort of mob pressure release rather than an actual plan to become intimidating, but don't think that is a big deal.

What do you mean my degrees are more aligned to the targets? Are you saying the BLM riots were more severe and destabilizing than J6?

Are you saying the BLM riots were more severe and destabilizing than J6?

It's as obvious to me as the opposite seems obvious to you. And not just because the deathcount is an order of magnitude higher.

I see it more as a sort of mob pressure release rather than an actual plan to become intimidating, but don't think that is a big deal.

I just see another irregular verb.

I release pressure. You riot. He is an insurrectionist.

What do you mean my degrees are more aligned to the targets?

You think trashing the desk of a congressman is a strictly less legitimate form of political expression than trashing that of random people or that of policemen. As a Frenchman I find that exceptionally weird. If anything the proper order of a republic would go the other way around.

I'm obviously not your immediate interlocutor, and I don't think BLM should be dismissed as something like mere "pressure release" - but still, attacks on legislative bodies seem to be in a fundamentally more severe category to me. It seems foundational to representative democracy that legislative bodies are to serve as a sleeker and more efficient representation of voter preferences as expressed by the act of voting, and any attempt to subvert this by subjecting representatives to pressures other than "how will the voters vote in the next election" is threatening that very foundation. Meanwhile, our political system as I understand it does not make any particular promises about police representing anyone at all. Therefore, trying to use violence on legislators to get them to act in a particular way is worse than trying to use violence on policemen to get them to act in a particular way.

This is not a Russell conjugation; I am very happy to consider the leftish-perpetrator examples of this post to be worse than J6 (which was honestly a relative nothingburger as far as threatening legislators goes).

any attempt to subvert this by subjecting representatives to pressures other than "how will the voters vote in the next election" is threatening that very foundation

No argument there, but the question is as to whether this or directly threatening the voters is worse. I don't think that's that clear cut. In a lot of ways I think the purpose of politicians in democracy is actually to hold the buck and get all that energy directed towards them rather than turned into factionalism.

What do you mean my degrees are more aligned to the targets? Are you saying the BLM riots were more severe and destabilizing than J6?

Yes, definitely.

@ArjinFerman

I thought you said there was a legal argument for it being worse, rather than merely symbolic?

Violence committed on federal property is a bigger issue. Violence or threats of violence against Congress is a bigger issue than property destruction, legally.

Violence committed on federal property is a bigger issue.

Why?

There was less "violence and threats of violence against congress", and more "fumbling around a building until asked to leave". Also what they set on fire was a police station, making it more than mere property crime.

Violence committed on federal property is a bigger issue.

So... it's closer to those federal courthouses being attacked, than the police precinct being burned down?

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