site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   31517 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’ve always thought every government worker with a security clearance should be allowed to insider trade as a way to make up for their lower salaries than in the private sector.

This comment may be more applicable to state-government employees than to federal-government employees.

@anti_dan

Employees of my state government definitely have low wages in comparison to private industry. Resignations for higher-paying non-government jobs were continual during my time there. I saw multiple highly-regarded employees, including one person who was widely considered a shoo-in for future director of my entire department, leave for private industry.

@greyenlightenment @Amadan

Pension is 1/100 of salary per year of tenure for federal workers (based on contributions of 4.4 percent of salary—Amadan's figure of 6 percent appears to be incorrect), but 1/60 of salary per year of tenure (two-thirds higher than federal government) for employees of my state government (based on contributions of 7.5 percent of salary).

They definitely have stable employment. I am ignorant of the details of the health-insurance situation.

What percentage of federal workers with a clearance are actually underpaid these days? The GS salary structure is not miserly, particularly if you are somewhere other than Northern Virginia, and the feds have often recruited for more permanent positions (places like the DOJ are often temporary places of employment for strivers and are outliers) middling candidates. Paired with stability of employment and the generous retirement programs and it seems like a good deal for a lot of them. Particularly given in a lot of these positions, maintaining clearance once you are out of government is not guaranteed and losing it would mean losing your private sector position.

What percentage of federal workers with a clearance are actually underpaid these days?

The people responsible for the successful execution of the Maduro capture added at least $100 billion in value to the US Equity market. There is no way they are being fairly compensated.

The stock market gaining $100 billion in valuation is easily within a standard deviation of movement

Eh, the stock market went up, but it's not necessarily a result. Why would deposing Maduro help the US equity markets that much?

Yeah, the biggest problem they'd get into for that isn't the SEC regulation violations.

but they get huge pensions, stable employment, top tier healthcare packages and other perks

but they get huge pensions

The old pension system which only boomers have was fairly generous (though still not "huge"), but the current one gives you at most 33% of your highest annual salary after 30 years of service, and requires around a 6%4.4% contribution.

stable employment

Have you been paying attention to Trump's second term?

top tier healthcare packages

Feds get access to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Kaiser and a bunch of other health plans, but generally not "top tier" ones (or if they take the top tier it's very expensive). The government pays an employer contribution but it's not like feds are getting free or executive-level health care.

and other perks

Nothing that isn't pretty standard (and often better) in private industry.

Have you been paying attention to Trump's second term?

the DOGE layoffs were single year outlier of otherwise stable employment and good job prospects . 90% of the reduction was voluntary and only 10% through formal termination

To add to what @Amadan said:

Anecdotal, but people I know at state level agencies are seeing an influx of applications from federal level employees for essentially the first time in history.

Historically, state level work is minor league and federal level is The Show. AUSAs are overqualified to be local ADAs, are better paid, went to better schools, have better exit opportunities into private practice. An ADA aspires to work for the US Attorney, rarely the reverse.

Now, local DAs are reporting a good number of well qualified AUSA's applying for jobs at the county DA. That is water flowing uphill. Ditto state environmental departments, attorneys general, parks departments, etc.

Barroom speculation and rumor is that these AUSAs are concerned about job security, worried about being forced to participate in political prosecutions for reasons both cynical (I might face consequences when the worm turns) or ideological (I'm not going to sign my name to false indictments), and are frustrated with incompetent appointees in charge.

But assistant prosecutors in particular are generally pretty right wing and very law and order, so it's particularly notable that they're trying to get out.

This kind of talent shift is both a notable sign of something going on in the bureaucracy, and a long term power shift between state and federal agencies.

This is only partially true.

The goal was to disrupt federal employment as something people think of as stable and secure. The administration knew that they had to do something damaging enough that the next administration can't just undo it in the new president's first month in office. This has certainly been accomplished. Many of the "voluntary" reductions were because of the fear of imminent layoffs and the administration making it clear that those who didn't take the deal would be facing involuntary termination.

The assumption that federal employment is stable and secure (let alone a "sinecure") is no longer valid.

The deal feds used to implicitly be offered was lower pay and benefits in exchange for stability- layoffs were very rare and of course being terminated is difficult (though not as difficult as some people think). Now they get lower pay and benefits, and the current administration has made it very clear they want to get rid of as many of them as possible and will do what they can to accomplish this. They may or may not be successful, but the intention was to go right for the feds who had the attitude last time that they could just wait Trump out.

Lockheed employees are not poor in retirement either.

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