site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   36678 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 2022

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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Somewhat slantwise, Kanye's recent travails and the debate about his mental health make me think again about an argument I got into about Brittany Spears with my wife. Hot take: Coogan's Law should be universalized to all celebrities and not just minors. Record companies, sports teams, and film companies should be required to follow the same rules for adult entertainers as for kids:

This law requires a child actor's employer to set aside 15% of the earnings in a trust (often called a Coogan Account)...

Because so many of these people crack up, go broke, etc. I'm not pro Free Brittany, I'm pro enslave Olivia Rodrigo. Hell, SBF should have been putting aside 15% of his earnings rather than thinking the gravy train would never stop. Kanye should have been forced to put aside 15% of his earning when he was sane into a conservatively managed blind trust, so that he'd have something to fall back on. If we're going to put these people into a situation they are not emotionally or mentally equipped to handle, we should be providing them with the tools to survive it.

Seriously, in cases like the NFL/NBA where so many players wind up broke, the player's associations should be forcing this into every contract. 15% goes into a trust where the principal can't be touched until the player is 50 or 60.

If idiot NFL players can't be bothered to manage their funds responsibly and squander them... that's their problem. Kanye's finances should be controlled by Kanye. Banking and crypto exchanges are qualitatively different - they're dealing with other people's money. That's another matter entirely.

Taking people's money 'for their own good' isn't just wrong, it creates enormous perverse incentives. I am required by my govt to pay 10% and soon 12% of my wages to idiot superannuation fund managers who squander it on dodgy investments and directly steal it via fees. There's a flywheel where the superannuation funds support Labor financially and Labor then raises the mandatory superannuation cap.

Moreover, I'll never get to spend the money since AI will probably have destroyed or changed the world unrecognizably by the time I retire. Give me back my money!

Not knocking the general idea, but for the particular - do you think Ye might complain, conspiratorially, rightly or wrongly, that his money is being stolen and then managed by Jews? Particularly if his money flows into ESG funds containing organizations that undermine him and his message.

I'm also wondering if, like every other institution being undermined, the 'blind' trust would start to blackmail and withhold funds, using some flimsy legalese pretense, from people who blaspheme against the successor ideology. Might Blackrock force liquidate ETFs owned by undesirables? Why can't they? Why wouldn't they?

It's Britney, not Brittany.

Also, that's incredibly paternalistic and condescending. That's OK when we're talking about literal children, but it's a different thing to have the nanny state stick their schnoz in the private affairs of famous and highly visible people.

I'm really upset you missed the opportunity to say, It's Britney, bitch!

78% of former NFL players are under severe financial stress or bankrupt within 2 years. We're putting people into predictably bad situations over and over, and then saying fuck em they were weak when they don't work out.

Setting it as a law was a pisstake, but the player's associations really should include this in the next CBA. A union that cares about all its members should have the brains to realize that its members lack brains.

There's also nothing stopping record or film executives from putting it in every contract they sign with a young performer. I want to look out for you, I don't want to see my stars go the way of other stars. The studio system had its flaws and its villains, but it also protected and built careers for a lot of players who never made it after they broke "free."

I can agree with your overall thought process but I think this would be a huge step to start with. I think you can get the best of both worlds by slightly changing up your plan. Instead of a blind 15% trust, what if the CBAs included mandatory finance classes or even mandatory financial advisor for each franchise to offer their players? I don't think these athletes are stupid or incapable of being better with their money - I think they're uninformed & rich surrounded by a bunch of other uninformed rich people. Providing mandatory classes or free financial services could be a great way for players to keep possession of their money but learn lifelong lessons about how they should take care of it.

I'm pretty sure that's required by the NFL, as part of the rookie orientation process.

78% of former NFL players are under severe financial stress or bankrupt within 2 years. We're putting people into predictably bad situations over and over, and then saying fuck em they were weak when they don't work out.

Jeez. I'm unironically wondering if the repeated low-grade brain injuries have anything to do with that.

I don't think soccer and basketball players or rock musicians do much better. More to do with becoming rich quickly without the emotional equipment to handle it.

Taylor Swift, my local girl, is the daughter of a corporate lawyer. And she always gets her legal rights "The Jews" can't touch her.Because she has the instincts to handle her wealth.

Magic Johnson and Lebron had it naturally, they make good decisions. But most don't. SBF didn't have the instincts to handle his success either and I doubt he's been in a lot of fistfights.

Yeah.

I know a decent amount of high-income 'lottery winner' types between sports, influencers and a few other similar fields. Most just mentally operate on the assumption that the income'll never stop coming.

We aren't saying fuck them, we are saying they are adults capable of making decisions for themselves and living with the consequences of those decisions. If I decide I want to do that then cool, but I don't trust anyone who thinks they can put their hand in my pocket, let alone those who think they can do it "for my own good". I don't care how rich or stupid I am, 1776 will commence again before you make me pay a 15% tithe.

I don't care how rich or stupid I am, 1776 will commence again before you make me pay a 15% tithe.

12.4% is no big deal, but 15% we fight!

Or are you currently posting from your bunker?

See this is why people don't compromise - it is treated like the compromise it is at the time, but after time passes it is seen as tacit endorsement.

Also are you suggesting a 2.6% increase to social security benefits or a 15% increase, or just another 15% separate and on top of social security?

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