site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29390 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 6, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I really enjoy getting downvoted on Reddit for doing the "CEO pay"/"# workers" = "incredibly small number"

It's always a good laugh

Another fun one is when people get shitty about airplane ticket prices, insist on how airlines are ripping them off and how "back in the day" flying was luxurious and nice.

Shockingly, pointing out 1) airlines are a cutthroat awful industry to be in with 3% net income margins (5% operating) which can be seen by them constantly getting bailed out, 2) "back in the day" airplane tickets were something like $10,000 in today dollars, and 3) if you want the "back in the day" experience, you can actually have a better version of it right now by flying first/business class results in screeching and downvotes.

I think the cost of plane tickets back in the day is exaggerated. Based on my reading, I think they were about 10 times more expensive than the most budget airline deals of today, but still affordable for the average upper middle class person. In the early 70s you would have paid the equivalent of about $1000-$1500 in today's money to fly from coast to coast in the US. So plane travel was not nearly as affordable for poor and lower middle class people as it is today, but it also wasn't something that only the upper class could afford.

In the early 70s you would have paid the equivalent of about $1000-$1500 in today's money to fly from coast to coast in the US.

Which confirms @fmac's point - a quick search on Kayak found that Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines* have 1st class transcon fares in that price range. And "Economy with extra legroom" plus the checked bag and other such upcharges is a lot cheaper, and closer to a 1970's economy experience than 1st class is.

* The big 3 carriers use long-haul configured aircraft on the premium transcon routes, and long-haul business class is a lot nicer and a lot more expensive than traditional US domestic first class. So you need to look at smaller airlines to get a fair comparison.

That may not seem like a lot, but even as a relatively comfortable middle class office worker, 5X more expensive airfare would have a massive effect on my wellbeing. Going from being able to visit friends and family spread around the country three or four times a year to being able to swing a single family reunion every two or three years. Entire years at a time not being able to see my parents. I would have been an adult before getting on my first plane, because there's no way in hell my parents could have swung $6000 on airfare for a family vacation. As much as I grumble about 17-inch-wide seats, I'll take that over forced isolation any day.

So plane travel was not nearly as affordable for poor and lower middle class people as it is today

I suspect this has something to do with air travel in the past being romanticized as the good old days.

I really enjoy getting downvoted on Reddit for doing the "CEO pay"/"# workers" = "incredibly small number"

This is like 50% of what drives me crazy. What are people clicking downvote even doing? Do they think you're making the very easily checked facts up? Are they mad that you're spoiling a good circle jerk? Have you simply signaled that you're a member of the outgroup and must be destroyed? This is a fact that should cause a complete crash to their worldview and it does. not. register.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it's downvoted because splitting up that money is not the point. The point is that the money is undeserved and unfair.

I think it's all of the above, but is largely operationalized as a gut reaction/feeling versus a conscious choice. Person doesn't like thing, person chooses the "negative" option, whether that's a downvote, 1 star, or whatever. I think it's almost entirely a system 1 decision though.

It's also really funny because that behavior in endemic here as well. It's a very human reaction.

I try to only do it here when someone is making bad faith arguments but it can be cathartic to downvote someone. In highly insular communities, any wrongthink is quickly teleported to the shadow realm.

Moderating is a whole other topic but it’s essential to quality discussion. The less pervasive and more focused on agreed upon rules, the better.

airlines are a cutthroat awful industry to be in with 3% net income margins (5% operating) which can be seen by them constantly getting bailed out

One of my favorite jokes:

What's the easiest way to become a millionaire?

Start out as a billionaire and buy an airline

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