site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   32882 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 7, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When Aristotle talks about "natural slaves" he's not really talking about some American nightmare-vision of an antebellum plantation*. The ancient Greek system of slavery he was familiar with was closer to "employee who can't quit" than it was to "living under absolute constant terror." In some sense "slave" is a mistranslation, because the context is so different.

If you say "should it be legal to enslave people" everyone says no; but if you asked the same people "Should it be legal for certain people to be employed in jobs they can't quit" many would say yes.

There's no question that a great number of people need a structured job created for them, where they are directed. Traditionally, bosses took a large hand in the personal lives of their workers; today that is frowned upon.

*It should be noted that actual plantation life wasn't like that either. There were black slaves better off than some poor white people.

If you want something Americans would actually agree on, it would be the proposition: “Should everyone, except for children, the elderly, and the seriously infirm, work?” The answer there would be an overwhelming yes; those who disagree are a lunatic fringe.

Now, the real question is: “If someone who is able-bodied refuses to work, what should be done with them?” And I believe the answer there varies widely, but the most popular is “then neither shall he eat.” But this conflicts with another popular opinion, that people down on their luck should get some help or at least shouldn’t starve, and certainly Christ put his finger on the scale for this one. This, I think, is the source of most of our problems.

But permanent contracts? Come on, man, it’s already literal slavery. And although I’m sure you could confuse a few people on a poll, almost everyone understands it. In order for people to agree it would have to be more like: can people sign time-gated contracts where their broad behavior is dictated by their employer (with major and explicit caveats for human dignity) and failure to comply revokes the privileges and pay granted by the contract? And here people would say yes, because there are already contracts like this, especially for the military. But to have your liberty removed forever with no remedy? No way.

If you want something Americans would actually agree on,

I think this is where we're not connecting: I don't think most Americans would support permanent lifetime contracts.

But I think 15% might. Which is better than the maybe 2% that would support Slavery. Which is my point.

"Slave" is at some level a mistranslation in Aristotle because the Slavery he's talking about isn't the Slavery most Americans think of. One could probably just as well translate the idea as some people are natural employees and some people are natural bosses.

Strong disagree. I think 5% or less would support that, within polling margin of error. I’m a little shocked you think otherwise. Do you personally know people who would sign such a contract? What are they like? If you don’t know any, aren’t you just saying that you’d like to enslave people?

I know well that American chattel slavery was unusually bad. But Greek slavery was also quite bad, you know. It’s what they did to people they defeated in war! Or, read in the reverse, people were willing to fight potentially to the death for the privilege of not being a slave! I know we’re all very sophisticated around here and have very novel and interesting perspectives, but this is lazy whitewashing.

I fully understand that society always has and likely always will have classes, and that the labor of the lower classes is compelled in a way which the upper classes are not subject to. I’m even amenable to the idea that it’s a reasonable system in the abstract for some to own and organize while others provide more of their labor. But slavery is an extreme form, not the normal, and it’s fair to say that those in the bottom tranches of labor should get their choice of master or strong customary and legal protections or both, and that depriving them of these is wrong.

If you want something Americans would actually agree on, it would be the proposition: “Should everyone, except for children, the elderly, and the seriously infirm, work?” The answer there would be an overwhelming yes; those who disagree are a lunatic fringe.

‘Work’ means very different things to different people. Ranging from ‘contribute to society in some way with the degree and method to be chosen by the worker’ to ‘do whatever it takes to provide for your family’ to ‘idle hands are the devil’s implements’.

Quite true, and I suppose it varies along lines of culture and class. Doesn’t make it any easier to determine lawful slavery, I suppose.

With two main exceptions, I think that very few people in the West would say that it should be legal for people to be employed in jobs they can't quit. The number of people who would say that is, I think, not much larger than the number of people who would say that it should be legal to enslave people. Which is not surprising, given that being employed in a job you can't quit is basically a form of slavery.

One main exception is people's attitudes about conscription and about desertion after voluntarily joining the military. I think that these are probably an exception mainly because people even in liberal democracies are historically used to them and because fear of foreign threat is an emotionally powerful motivator.

The other main exception is prison labor. I think that one is an exception because people feel that prison labor helps to repay damage that prisoners have caused to others / to society.

@MadMonzer

I think that very few people in the West would say that it should be legal for people to be employed in jobs they can't quit. The number of people who would say that is, I think, not much larger than the number of people who would say that it should be legal to enslave people. Which is not surprising, given that being employed in a job you can't quit is basically a form of slavery.

"People who quit their job and can't find another one should be allowed to starve" is a position with non-negligible support, but that is a different view to "people should not be allowed to quit their job in the first place". The right to quit your job for a better one is fundamental to the capitalist concept of freedom.

Let me elaborate my hypothetical a bit and see if you understand where I'm coming from.

Poll Question A: Should the US legalize Slavery?

I suspect the Yes answers to this would meet the Lizardman constant. A few trolls and a few people whose politics are so insane as to indistinguishable under Poe's Law.

Poll Question B: Should it be legal for Employers to sign contracts with Employees which guarantee lifetime employment, in exchange for which the Employees agree to work for that Employer for the rest of their lives or until released by the Employer, and to do any job requested by the Employer?

I suspect that while this would still be a distinct minority, it would draw more support than A. Many people who oppose slavery oppose it conceptually, oppose Slavery as a boo-light, but don't actually oppose the underlying reality of slavery. In the same way that Fascism probably polls lower than the elements of Fascism.

Hell I could imagine that a decent number of red tribe types would support forcing chronically unemployed or unemployable people into jobs they aren't allowed to quit.

The ancient Greek system of slavery

There isn't a single ancient Greek system of slavery. There are two well-documented systems of slavery (Spartan helotry and Athenian slavery) that are sufficiently different that the sources usually use different words for them. There does seem to be a consensus that Athenian slaves (except for the slaves in the polis-owned silver mines) were treated considerably better than the Greek average, and that Spartan helots were treated worse. That in turn suggests that even more distinct systems of slavery existed in other poleis and we simply don't have details.

but if you asked the same people "Should it be legal for certain people to be employed in jobs they can't quit" many would say yes.

I haven't come across these people. Apart from the special case of military discipline, sufficiently few people support bringing back indentured servitude that the business associations lobbying for broad enforceability of non-competes have to lie and say that it is about protecting trade secrets and not stopping people quitting their jobs to get better ones.

"People who quit their job and can't find another one should be allowed to starve" is a position with non-negligible support, but that is a different view to "people should not be allowed to quit their job in the first place". The right to quit your job for a better one is fundamental to the capitalist concept of freedom.

Plenty of people support thé lower orders not being allowed to quit their jobs without special circumstances. Probationers and parolees are under this condition, for example.

This may or may not be what FHM was talking about but in the event of a crisis like a war most European countries have legal methods to conscript not only soldiers but other workers as well.

In Sweden this is called "krigsplacering" (war placement) and most governmental workers and medical professionals are passively krigsplacerade by default, but in theory it applies to everyone and for any crisis the government decides is severe enough. For example, in an event of a pandemic, doctors can be forced to work.

Now, this is obviously intended for limited periods of time but forced conscription of labour is absolutely legal in most western democracies. Both this and military conscription typically enjoys high support.

When Aristotle talks about "natural slaves" he's not really talking about some American nightmare-vision of an antebellum plantation.

Yes, this is right--it's always interesting teaching the Politics because I have to explain to my students all of the ways in which "slave" can be interpreted. Fortunately, Aristotle himself also lays out how differently slavery was practiced in different parts of Greece--very like your footnote suggests of antebellum American slavery. In Book 2 of the Politics, Aristotle writes:

Or, upon what principle would they submit, unless indeed the governing class adopt the ingenious policy of the Cretans, who give their slaves the same institutions as their own, but forbid them gymnastic exercises and the possession of arms.

Apparently, at least from Aristotle's perspective, slaves in Crete were just regular people who couldn't hit the gym or own guns pointy metal objects. This was apparently more generous than slavery as practiced in Athens, which was in turn apparently more liberal than the way it was practiced in Sparta. To the best of my understanding, chattel slavery was not the norm in ancient Greece, but neither was it unheard of.

These days it is essentially impossible to have a nuanced policy debate on slavery. We have insisted on eradication of the practice, while in great measure merely obfuscating it. If that was a necessary step to the elimination of chattel slavery, well, then I suppose I can't complain too much about it. But I find it at least of interest that so many technically free, politically enfranchised humans in the West would probably be better off with greater guidance--even though I do not regard myself as in want or need of similar intervention.

(But that may simply be a further question of degree. If we really did build a genuine superintelligence, unfettered by "alignment" to some other human's political agenda, would I not be wise to submit myself to it? I feel grateful to doubt that I will ever face such a choice.)

But that may simply be a further question of degree. If we really did build a genuine superintelligence, unfettered by "alignment" to some other human's political agenda, would I not be wise to submit myself to it? I feel grateful to doubt that I will ever face such a choice.)

I'm sure that I'm notorious enough that my own subjective likelihood of facing an ASI in my lifespan doesn't need elaboration, and I'll skip over my usual arguments.

I think that, compared to life as it is right now, accepting the rule and oversight of a benevolent superintelligence would be grossly superior, and beats rule by humans in just about every metric (barring your ability to rebel, should you have strong feelings on the matter). They are likely incorruptible, smarter than the average politician, and thus far better placed to consider the likely outcomes of their policies. They might even, at least theoretically, be democratic and defer to the opinions of us retarded humans. I'd hope so, at least, since we're the ones building them to fulfill our whims.

(If they're not benevolent, gg I guess)

That being said, that's not what I consider an ideal world. I'd much rather use the kind of technology available in a post-Singularity world to improve myself and rapidly bootstrap to the level of an ASI so I can exert agency and be treated as a peer. I'd rather not be beholden to anyone, no matter how kind and wise.

This is of course, a rather aspirational goal. About the same as me saying that utopia-with-free-blowjobs beats utopia-without.

The ancient Greek system of slavery he was familiar with was closer to "employee who can't quit" than it was to "living under absolute constant terror." ... It should be noted that actual plantation life wasn't like that either. There were black slaves better off than some poor white people.

I've been reading some American slave narratives on and off (not the more politically loaded pre-war ones). One of the most striking things about them is just how much they vary. When you give an individual near absolute power over another group of people, it reveals a tremendous amount about his character.

(That's not to deny the influence of social customs or economic incentives, both of which are also quite visible in the narratives.)

Even the most politically loaded prewar narrative, Frederick Douglass, reveals the same pattern. One of my favorite anecdotes is when he bribes young white street urchins in Baltimore to teach him to read by giving them bread, which he has free access to an effectively unlimited amount of in the kitchen. Or his lament for how the institution of getting drunk on new years causes plantation slaves to waste money that they could be saving to try to buy their freedom. Slave experiences varied wildly and were not unform suffering and lack of agency.

Still, it must be noted that ancient Greek slavery was just a different institution. Most slaves were not slaves for many generations, slavery was not racialized as radically, freedmen did not worry (any more than anyone else) about being re-enslaved.

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