site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   30421 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 14, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm a doomer on the U.S., and I want to know what you guys think, in general, will be the trend for the next decade or further on. Here's my theory for how all this ends:

  • Politically, conflict theory has totally won. Extremists from both parties keep trying to outdo each other. This can lead to outright civil war or government breakdown down the line. Democracies all around the globe host more and more unhappy populations that, no matter which politicians they vote in, never seem to get what they want, leading them to vote in more and more strange and radical candidates.
  • Government spending will never recede. Too many groups need to stay satisfied with their welfare, otherwise the party that cuts them will never win an election again. This will lead to an eventual collapse, someday, with more and more economic pain as time goes on and as less productive people exist to support the invalids and growing number of leeches.
  • Dating sucks and gender relations are likely going to get worse as the social media experiment continues, to South Korea levels. It can only get worse from here.
  • As someone mentioned downthread, I could easily see status becoming harder and harder to get, as the players in the game optimize towards the most awful way to live: constant striving in every arena. Anyone left playing the game is a tiger mom. This is the one I'm least sure about, but it could change rapidly as economic circumstances shift.
  • I have no idea if the country will fail slow or fast, but it will likely decline in the next decade by a noticeable amount.

My friend is more of an optimist. Here's his theory on the first one:

  • Eventually, one party is going to realize their extremists never win races. They elect a moderate. Things normalize, politically.

Unfortunately, I didn't quiz him on all the rest of it. But now, somehow, it is making me wonder about the outlook of most of the Mottizens. I certainly see the doomer take on things pretty often.

I see a factoid sometimes that says conservatives are happier with their lives than liberals. Maybe that's a factor of rural living, maybe that's a factor of less thinking about serious issues, and less reading. I am pretty sure that conservatives on this site, on average, do not live in rural areas and, on average, think a lot more about serious issues, and read more. So maybe some bad, anecdotal science testing on The Motte is in order.

Are you a doomer, or a "bloomer"? What are some factors that lead you to your conclusion that the country is trending downwards or upwards? Please explain yourself, and please fight it out with everyone who thinks you're wrong.

Not American myself and often I find myself thinking 'Americans should try living with real incomes actually declining for a few years before doomposting online.' Despite many problems, the US has been able to sustain productivity growth where Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia have failed. Productivity is everything in the long run. You can buy or build your way out of just about any problem.

See the chart here. All the rich countries have been self-sabotaging much worse than the US: https://x.com/adam_tooze/status/1945588810898620786

But also there's a certain level of dopeyness in US leadership: https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-digital-escorts-pentagon-defense-department-china-hackers

Microsoft is using engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems — with minimal supervision by U.S. personnel — leaving some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary, a ProPublica investigation has found.

The arrangement, which was critical to Microsoft winning the federal government’s cloud computing business a decade ago, relies on U.S. citizens with security clearances to oversee the work and serve as a barrier against espionage and sabotage.

But these workers, known as “digital escorts,” often lack the technical expertise to police foreign engineers with far more advanced skills, ProPublica found. Some are former military personnel with little coding experience who are paid barely more than minimum wage for the work.

The other democracies also are slack to a certain extent, often a greater level, there's malaise and pointless bungling. But this still seems pretty bad. How do you plan on beating (or even deterring) China, a vastly larger country with enormous depths of talent and ludicrous levels of industrialization? You have to fight smart, you have to be wise and judicious.

"We're trusting that what they're doing isn't malicious, but we really can't tell."

US govt doesn't seem that smart. Plenty of smart people in America but perhaps not enough and surely not enough in the right places. There is or perhaps was an entire Discourse about the need to keep the all-important AI weights secret from Chinese spies. The concern was that private companies like OpenAI or Google were nowhere near the level of cybersecurity needed to combat state actors, they needed urgent government assistance and targeted industrial policy to support them. But this idea assumes the US is capable of keeping secrets, or of maintaining a major lead in AI, or actually implementing good plans correctly. But this 'doing things correctly' skill just doesn't seem to be there - military procurement, infrastructure buildout, fighting drugs, countering crime, tariffs, industrial policy...

I expect a society that has a number of educators who endorse pedagogy that prioritizes niceties over competence will generate less competent individuals. Although, I'm not sure that Americans at large ever did value competence much.

As for the government, the USG didn't seem that smart during the Cold War either. There was the government that allowed an intelligence agency to believe a 1000 strong militia could successfully execute regime change in Cuba with an amphibious landing. Sure, the CIA was a silly place filled with wacky ideas and incompetence. The very serious people -- the ones who didn't think the Bay of Pigs would work -- decided it was all well and good. They could just as easily deny involvement with a carrier task force offshore.

The USG has been exposed as inept in counter-espionage for century. Does this plane look familiar, or maybe I meant this one? US intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement were repeatedly compromised at high levels right up to the end of the Cold War. Despite the fact Soviet espionage efforts were proven beyond a doubt from get go the USG allowed, decided, or forgot to correct the public's perception. Instead, they were led to to believe Soviet-friendly memes like McCarthyism instead of the reality that the nation's adversaries posed serious threats. Then there was that time where the USG unwittingly decided America and the rest of the world should go hungry and foot the bill for Soviet breadlines. Woops! Didn't think about that one.

The USG belatedly rounds up spies from time to time, but its counter-espionage appears dismal as it ever was. It could be that general government incompetence can no longer be propped up by blessings, luck, or being too big to fail. Alternatively, China could be a far more capable adversary than the Soviets ever were. China is also not without its own incompetent fuck ups despite our general interest and the Iron Curtain Great Firewall. COVID, ahem.

The Soviets were great at espionage but at the end of the day, they were outmatched. USA + Western Europe + Japan > USSR + Eastern Europe + poor China. And China switched sides to the US camp late in the Cold War, which is almost forgotten today. USA + Western Europe + Japan + poor China >>> USSR + Eastern Europe.

And the Soviet system didn't work either, they were consistently behind in basically all fields of technology with rare exceptions. Temporary lead in spaceflight (but not missile force), temporary lead in tanks with the T-64. Far behind in semiconductors, submarines, guided weapons. They had talent but weren't good at innovation. Regardless of ideology it's tough when you and your allies are the poor countries who got hit hardest in WW2 and you're facing the industrialized, rich countries.

China is the biggest manufacturer in the world, they have scale the Soviets never had. Over twice US electricity production, 3x US car production, 13x US steel production, 1.5x more industrial robots per worker. And their system works in that they can do high-tech.

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