site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   21817 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.

TV shows are notorious for showing people with better housing than is actually possible, so this means nothing.

As for the 1959 restaurant, I am not convinced that the only restaurant meals available were bland meat and potatoes, even if pokebowls specifically didn't exist.

He seems to have picked a bad year for his "but you couldn't doordash a poke bowl" example, as some cursory Googling gives me the inbuilt AI answer:

In 1959, American restaurants were dominated by diners and drive-ins, which were popular for their casual, affordable atmosphere and classic American food. These establishments often featured chrome and vinyl decor, with a menu that included burgers, fries, milkshakes, and other comfort food staples.

So if we're talking the rise of fast food/takeaways, 1959 was the year, baby!

Fast-food restaurants became a big part of the 1950s culture due to many other new innovations. Fast food restaurants became very popular during the 1950s because families were busy and they needed a place where they could quickly pick up food; people also wanted to be able to get quick food that they could eat in front of their new TVs.

What was buzzing, cousin, during the bleak and barren year 1959? Well, a lot, it seems. That pot-shot about tiny black and white screens? It was the Internet of its day, Scott m'man, just as in 2091 the Scott Sumner of that day will be laughing it up about the people back in 2025 who never even got snail tentacles quantum replicated for their micro-nutritional tasting menus and they didn't even have neural-net brain implant entertainment centres!

During the 1950s, the television became a huge part of the lifestyle. By 1954, over two-thirds of Americans owned a television and this helped form a national culture. Television changed politics by allowing speeches and political advertisements to be televised; things such as civil rights movements, documentaries about Communism, and other big news were aired on television. Many "Wild West" shows also became popular including: Davy Crockett(mid 1950s), Rin Tin Tin(1954-1959), and Gunsmoke(1955-1975). Variety Shows became very common because most programs were televised live; variety shows included musical performances, comedy skits, and animal tricks that were all hosted by engaging host. Television during the 1950s changed the society by allowing families to gather around to watch a performance, for speeches to be heard around the country, for the first commercials to be televised, and forming a national culture.

Plastic seats in your car? Plastics were the wonder material of the future!

During the 1950s decade, cars and other vehicles became more popular due to the affordability and needs for them. After the war, people in the United States believed that roads needed to be better, so the government's money started to be spent rebuilding roads; after roads were made better, everyone wanted a car, and to go on road trips or even camping. In 1950-1951, hardtop convertibles became popular from manufacturers like Chevy and the Buick Motor Division. In 1953, cars were being made with plastic fiberglass or a magnesium body; wrap around windows and wire racing wheels were often seen on cars; in 1953, three cars had air-conditioning and 50% of cars had an automatic shift, and by the end of the 1950s, Americans loved sports cars. Towards the end of the 1950s, station wagons also became very popular for growing families. Automatic transmissions, power brakes, power steering, power adjusted front seats, power window lifts and air conditioning were starting to be used in cars, and by 1958, 80% of cars had automatic transmissions. Cars became longer, lower, wider, and faster; chrome became heavily popular on cars; many cars were designed to look like something from the future to satisfy the people's ideas of fantasy. More cars were being produced and purchased during the 1950s because the economy was booming and families were growing , and the popularity of these vehicles lead to a new way of life.

Women's clothing styles during the 1950s dramatically changed because of the new styles and trends (like rock n' roll), as well as the ability to purchase new fabrics (a lot of new clothing designs and colors were inspired by Asian clothing) because of the great economy.

Booming economy, growing families, mass communication, mass transport, new kinds of eating experiences, a gap between childhood and adult life where you have more leisure time, more money, and more options with popular culture becoming attuned to you rather than your parents (the rise of the teenager), the New Look in fashion for women, affordable modern luxury for the average person: so tell me, the equivalent of $100,000 in 1959 or the equivalent of $12,500 in 2025, which sounds better to you?

That pot-shot about tiny black and white screens?

These days we have big screens, but most people spend the majority of yheir time staring at tiny 5 inch ones. So maybe size doesn't really matter.

It's about the FOV ratio if we're being pedantic. Some napkin math suggests that a typical smartphone matches a 55"-ish TV in its angular size, so a small TV is going to be objectively worse unless you're seated very close.

And even with all the problems of modern streaming TV services, the 5 inch smartphone screen is color, plays at high resolution, lets you watch programs when you want (mostly), and has a huge variety compared to a 1950s TV. And you can afford to have one for several family members.

The original comment is "compare what we have now to what they didn't have back then", which is fair along one axis. But not along another, which is "now you too, Mr and Mrs Average Citizen, can have a TV set of your very own!" In 1959 people only had tiny screens for black and white TV? No, in 1959 ordinary people now had access to the cutting-edge modern technology of TV!

Imagine what VR fantasy tech will be invented in sixty years time. Is it fair to laugh at people in 2025 for not having the latest evolution of that tech, compared to whatever VR tech is around now?

If you are dumped back in 1959 from 2025, yes you are going to miss all the advantages we have now. But "oh goodness me, I can't doordash a poke bowl" is a stupid example to pick, since right now in 2025 I can't doordash a poke bowl since I don't live in the Big City where you can get this (and even if I could, I probably wouldn't).

If you have to live in 1959, having the 1959 equivalent of $100 grand is the way to do it.

By that logic, being the chieftain of a hunter-gatherer tribe, or an ancient Assyrian king, would be preferable to living in the modern age; in other words, any era has technological improvements that seem impressive at the time. If people in 2125 have it better than we do now, then it's preferable to live in the future. But we don't know what things will be like then. We do know what things were like in the 1950s, and just because they seemed amazing at the time, they were objectively worse on almost every metric. In 1900 it would have been a big deal to have electricity, the telephone, and the phonograph record. In 1850 it would have been a big deal to have access to cheap textiles and mass-produced farming implements. But go back to then and you get a worse standard of living than people in the poorest parts of the world have today. If you think that the standard of living for a rich man is preferably, that can be achieved for a relatively modest sum of money in today's terms.

being the chieftain of a hunter-gatherer tribe, or an ancient Assyrian king, would be preferable to living in the modern age

Being a hunter-gatherer of any rank would probably kind of suck, because being a hunter-gatherer sucks -- but being an Assyrian king sounds kind of fucking awesome? I guess you'd want to be a successful king so you and your family don't get wiped out in a war, but the day-to-day would have to be pretty great, no?

I suspect the luxuries of being a king would just barely pave over the jank of living in ancient Assyria, for someone who is used to the modern era. It's probably like that effect bidet users claim where you're going to hate pooping anywhere without access to a bidet afterwards. Sure, having a harem of the best concubines antiquity can offer would be great, but without penicillin, salt and adjustable faucets?

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