site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   31573 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I now interrupt your regularly scheduled WWIII/Nothing Ever Happens to ask a question:

So, the Bike discussion down below generated a lot of angst and heat, so I'd like to poll The Motte on our driving habits a bit (in the CW thread because I do fear we are going to get some strong feelings).

How do we feel about the following:

  1. You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.

  2. Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.

  3. Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.

  4. The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.

  5. If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.

  6. I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.

  7. Any other possible driving scissor statements?

If you'd like to be mad at me: Yes, Yes, No, Yes with qualification, Yes, No.

  1. Yes.
  2. Under 5 for stop signs. Full stop for lights.
  3. Nope. Follow the flow of traffic. 5 over is almost always fine. Reduce heavily on quiet residential, out of respect.
  4. Only real rule is: don’t match pace with someone on your right. Speed up or slow down. Getting over is the best thing to do. Don’t ride anyone’s bumper, because it’s an obvious way to get in an accident and get stuck paying all the bills.
  5. It’s a little more nuanced. When you need to get over, be assertive, but be safe. Don’t play chicken or fuck around with physical law. But you don’t need someone to lay down the red carpet before you move.
  6. Follow the rules.
  7. If you realize you’re in the wrong lane at a light or some such, is it OK to break the flow of traffic to go where you meant to go, or should you continue as designated and course correct later?

FWIW all these questions are, to me, subsidiary to the real rules of driving, which are, in order of importance:

  1. Be in control of your vehicle.
  2. Keep yourself and others safe.
  3. Do not menace others, especially those who are more vulnerable, but also don’t worry people who are at risk of hurting you with your own vulnerability.
  4. Proceed in an orderly and predictable manner, following the customs and laws of the road.
  5. Ensure that everyone can get to where they’re going swiftly and cleanly.

Everything else is just a logical consequence of the above.

Proceed in an orderly and predictable manner

Personally I think this is an underrated component of the whole thing, and part of my issue with Bikes. Being predictable is safe.

Do we think bike lanes may help with predictability by giving them a separated containment zone?

I don't think you should implement bike lanes without stiff penalties for not using them (or for cars, stealing the space).

For now I see bike lanes as a waste of space that bicycles don't use.

I don't think you should implement bike lanes without stiff penalties for not using them (or for cars, stealing the space).

Tentatively down, although faith in western police to do a good job is low.

For now I see bike lanes as a waste of space that bicycles don't use.

It's tricky, adoption in the west is slow but growing. Very slow though, biking as a mode of transportation is climbing YoY in Toronto's core, but it's lower than I'd expect it to be given the massive utility (and traffic).

However, another reason they seem empty is because they are significantly more efficient. Bike lanes have wayyyyy higher throughput than car lanes, so you also don't see as many bikes because they're not stuck in traffic like you are (you're only seeing the same ~12 cars in your proximity), they're already gone.

If you live in the suburbs they probably are underused though. I don't have a dog in the fight of suburban living, if suburban residents want to have 4 lane each way mega roads (and the perpetual trickle of kids and old people being killed crossing them) that is their prerogative.

I mean it's def location dependent. If I lived in the Netherlands? That's one thing.

Where I live they function like handicap spots. Do people use them and need them? Sure. Are they nearly always empty unless someone is misusing them? Also sure.

Also tons of delivery/professional bike riders weaving through traffic, going on the side walk in an unsafe way, wrong waying on a lane and so on.

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