site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   24181 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 24, 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.

But therein lies a question: why the arms race for authenticity, instead of just, you know, being good at your job. We need to realize that it is entirely possible that being Good At Job is simply becoming less and less important these days.

I think you're spot on here. I've long believed that one of the reasons behind a lot of current employment isn't any actual requirement for productive work to be done, but to satisfy primitive primate desires to have flunkies and exert authority over other people. I'd be surprised if anyone who has worked in an office environment for more than a few months hasn't encountered a time when a decision was made that was bad for the business and reduced profits but satisfied the psychological needs of the managers in question.

Yeah. Had managers like that before. High performers get attacked and criticized for daring to have a different opinion. Kiss asses who don’t rock the boat are “safe” in the sense that they don’t notice the incompetency of their boss and see that it gets pointed out. Despite the fact that sharing different opinions, you know, helps to improve the job the managers are tasked with.

I read a book once about the hiring practices of large tech companies. I came across I think it was Sundar Pichai’s interview with Google. Or some major exec for Google now. During his interview process for a low level position he was asked what he thought about Gmail at that time, when it was still new. Instead of flattering the hiring manager, he took a critical line against it and started talking about the things he didn’t like and how he would improve the software for the public. It so blindsided the hiring team that they knew right then and there that they wanted him for important projects.

If you haven't read Parkinson's Law, you should. The more common law is "Work expands to fill all available time". Less pithy but relevant to your point is

"The number of workers within public administration, bureaucracy or officialdom tends to grow, regardless of the amount of work to be done. This was attributed mainly to two factors: that officials want subordinates, not rivals, and that officials make work for each other."

The book itself is filled with stuff like this.

While I'm sure most work being bullshit was the cause of capability requirements withering, I also think that our favourite bugbear here of DEI or rather its predecessor of Affirmative Action plays a role. Reducing the need for someone to actually know the broad based technicals of their job in exchange for being capable of doing something specific makes jobs lottery tickets for the incapable. As long as someone is not an active fuckup or active liability they can be held on payroll forever since their actual outcomes are materially unimportant. Annual KPI exercises are so easily gamed that you have to be an actual retard to fail in a firm that is able to plod along, and so if KPI isn't a way to get rid of someone then its just Team Spirit. And on soft metrics like that then theres no way they're getting rid of someone in the Protected Classes.

Indeed. You see if very clearly if you work in big corporate.

This is why I'm extremely skeptical AI will be "deleting all jobs" anytime soon.

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