site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   35214 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 9, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This morning I saw a bicyclist veer into the street even though there was a dedicated empty bike lane and an empty sidewalk

You know most places it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk right? And taking a lane is perfectly legal behavior, often done if the bike lane is not safe (you may not be able to see why from your vantage point in a car).

Just pass him safely at the next opportunity. It's his road too.

You know most places it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk right?

In my city it's legal almost everywhere except the central business district (conveniently the densest pedestrian area). There are specific places devoted in the law and I've seen signs marking them.

I mean *most, local laws do vary.

Even if it isn't illegal, it's usually also not illegal to not ride on the road, despite there being a sidewalk.

Somewhat more commonly laws mandate cycle path use, which in this case apparently there was. Though it could have been obstructed, or otherwise unsafe at his speed (certain paths are designed poorly enough that they're actually worse than no path).

I grant that in some areas, yes the cyclist could have been breaking the law. Still a minor infraction, not particularly dangerous (and what danger would be mostly on the cyclist), the biggest thing being a rather small annoyance to the drivers who had to wait to pass.

I've been told my whole life that riding on the sidewalk is illegal. But when a cop visited my school and a parent prompted him to tell us that, he said he's not aware of any such rule. Years later a cop yelled at me to get on the sidewalk when the bike lane was obstructed by cars. Let's say it is very hypothetically illegal.

If I was in that guy's situation I would ride in the bike lane or get on the sidewalk. Anything other than getting into the lane and hoping the driver behind you gets on the brakes on time. That's of course their legal obligation. I wouldn't bet my spine on it.

It's criminal (as in you could be sent to Rikers Island for it) to ride on the sidewalk in NYC, and (surprising many) both legal and occasionally required (e.g. to get onto the George Washington Bridge bike lane) right across the river. In some places it's legal for children but not for adults. It varies a lot by jurisdiction.

Googling a bit for the West Coast: I see California lacks a bikes on sidewalk law. So it is left up to local governments to regulate. Given how much I see kids on electric bikes on sidewalks: at least in practice they don't much bother regulating them.

While I may have been over confident about the illegality of the sidewalk rule in your area (definitely illegal most places I've lived/cycled, but not always the case) I think my point that at worst that kind of traffic infraction is as bad as going 20km/hr over.

He obviously has a higher risk tolerance than you, that doesn't mean it's a crazy unhinged decision to ride on the road.

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