site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25699 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the market itself is huge and important and if you hedged your bets correctly, you would be very wealthy.

This reminds me of a question I was kicking around with some friends. Suppose that around the time of the Internet Bubble, you had invested in a basket of all the hot tech stocks: Netscape, Amazon, etoys, PimentoLoaf.com, etc. How would you be doing 25 years later?

Depends on your timing. Do you buy in 1997-1999 or at the absolute peak in 2000?

How many companies do you pick out? Based on what metrics?

When it all crashes, do you cut your losses at a set point, or do you buy more? Assuming you got kicked out of them all, do you buy back into the most promising ones during the recovery?

But off the cuff I'd say that holding and never selling Amazon would make up for complete losses in several other stocks.

Depends on your timing. Do you buy in 1997-1999 or at the absolute peak in 2000?

How many companies do you pick out? Based on what metrics?

I agree those are good questions. For the sake of discussion, I would say

(1) you buy at the time when there is a lot of public discussion about a "bubble." So roughly 1998 or 1999.

(2) you buy a big basket of tech stocks. I'm tempted to just pick the Vanguard VITAX fund, but apparently that was not established until 2004.

When it all crashes, do you cut your losses at a set point, or do you buy more? Assuming you got kicked out of them all, do you buy back into the most promising ones during the recovery?

I would say you buy and hold.

But off the cuff I'd say that holding and never selling Amazon would make up for complete losses in several other stocks.

Well that's kind of the point. I believe that there is an AI stock market bubble but I have still invested roughly 10% of my savings in tech. Roughly speaking in the sort of stocks which make up Vanguard's VITAX fund. And I think I have a pretty good chance of coming out ahead.

Buying a big basket of more or less randomly chosen dotcom stocks would have destroyed you. If by big basket you mean 50-100 or more. The majority of those companies lost over 90% of their value and many never recovered at all. If Amazon was only 1% of your holding it might not have the weight to make up for the dozens of utter failures.

Buying a top, current tech fund is different, they're somewhat competently curated.

Buying a big basket of more or less randomly chosen dotcom stocks would have destroyed you. If by big basket you mean 50-100 or more. The majority of those companies lost over 90% of their value and many never recovered at all. If Amazon was only 1% of your holding it might not have the weight to make up for the dozens of utter failures.

Thanks for posting this, it's probably something I should have researched before buying a big basket of random tech stocks in 2024-2025.

Famously, Cisco only just barely got back to its Dotcom bubble era peak (and maybe it still hasn't yet if you account for inflation?).

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