site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   27263 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 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.

The US has a very peculiar arrangement where you don't buy healthcare. Your insurance provider buys healthcare on your behalf from healthcare providers, (except when they don't). But at least you buy health insurance, so if you get bad service from your insurance provider you can switch Your health insurance, in turn, is bought for you by your employer. Basically everyone in the system has terrible incentives.

  • Healthcare providers are incentivized to overtreat because it mitigates risk (less likely to get sued for malpractice), allows them to charge more, and the patient (usually) isn't footing most of the bill, so they're often price insensitive. (Also, the patients are clueless so they have no real ability to argue with the doctors about treatment plans)
  • Health Insurers are generally trying to sell the cheapest product possible to employers and pay out as little as possible to providers. They're not terribly worried about customer service quality beyond an absolute bare minimum, because their customers have limited ability to leave. So they stiff patients and deny coverage whenever they can get away with it.
  • Employers are generally trying to conform to their legal obligations and need to retain employees as cheaply as possible. Fortunately for them, your employees aren't sick most of the time, so you can actually get away with buying them fairly low quality health insurance.
  • The patient wants treatment, but lacks the information and expertise to make an informed decision. Almost as importantly, they want to avoid being left holding the bag. If the doctor recommends it and insurance approves it, they'll probably agree to it, because better safe than sorry. After all, it's (mostly) not their money (until it is).

The result is that the consumer (i.e. patient) is marooned in an incredibly capricious system which is only tenuously interested in his welfare and which may saddle him with a colossal bill as a result of processes completely opaque to him.

The one thing missing is that the people inside a business who select the Health Insurer also usually is subject to the choice they make. I have watched a company switch to a cheap horrid plan, then switch back after two years when the chief HR lady had a cancer scare.

This is probably the best summary I've ever seen on this topic. Thank you.

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