site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   29432 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.

So sure, the CEO's pay has little to do with the hourly pay of workers. But, what kind of boot licker looks at a $95mm salary and says he earned it without asking what his VORP is? Because I'm sure they couldn't have done too much worse for $50mm.

Well. How much would you demand to be CEO of Starbucks?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be flip. Being the CEO of Starbucks sounds terrible. They're in decline, having been badly mismanaged, and competition is becoming more fierce than ever. And a ton of their stores have become unionized and the NLRB is saying shit like you must re-open closed stores. Figuring out how to stick your nose up Trump's ass is almost certainly in your future.

If I'm hot shit enough to be taking interviews with boards of directors of $100 billion companies I would not come to Starbucks for cheap.

Again, none of this is to say my OP is about what the CEO deserves. That's separate.

I mean you can play "bigger fool" and say everyone who gets offered CEO of Starbucks probably has some other pendejo company that will offer him $94mm, but I think that just tells you lots of companies are pendejos. Marrying a whore is stupid even if she has other proposals. Now answering your question as asked, me personally:

If I'm given creative control to turn the company around the way I would do it, $5mm/yr plus long term stock options tied to performance. Operating under the assumption that I'm also getting expense accounts for flights and other costs that go into being CEO, So higher total compensation.

If I have to follow the board's cockamamie operation plan and I'm taking the wheel on the Titanic to take off steam before the iceberg? $20mm per year cash, that's enough after a few years to walk away and work on my memoirs in some New England shore spot.

Now realistically I'm not at that talent level to run that organization. But we know there are guys at that talent level who will run similar organizations for $10-20mm, and if you can't find one on the street poach a runner up from Costco.

Well. How much would you demand to be CEO of Starbucks?

I would do it for a paltry $1m/year, almost 1% of what they are paying the current guy. I don't promise to be a great businessman who can turn the company around, but it sounds like he isn't either. So if they're going to have someone who is bad at the job, they may as well at least have someone who is cheap.

Sticking your nose up Trump's ass so he makes the NRLB do whatever you want is easy though.

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