site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11629 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Importantly: we are not claiming that climate change is economically harmless. We're arguing that the magnitude of damages is deeply and irreducibly uncertain, and trillion-dollar decisions need to stop being made as if it isn't.

Is anyone actually doing this? Are the evil UN bureaucrats taking the first derivative of their GDP(GHG) model to determine how much CO2 the world gets to emit? Have they invented psycho-history?

Only the stupid and partisans claim that climate change is either non-existent/harmless or will wipe out humanity. Only very stupid, partisan economists claim that they can predict the effect of a certain mean temperature change on the global GDP within a percent.

I can do the same:

In this paper, we study the risk assessment and behavior of gas station attendants being robbed at gunpoint. We find that their predictions in the case of noncompliance vary widely. Some expect the robber to shot them in the head, others to shoot them in a knee, others to fire a warning shot first or attack customers. In many cases, the clerks were not even aware of the type of ammo being in the gun and still making assumptions about the type of injuries it could afflict.The magnitude of damages an armed addict might cause when you refuse him is deeply and irreducibly uncertain, and they should not make a decision affecting the contents of their cash register as if it isn't.

Humans make decisions under uncertainty all the time. Sure, it would help to know "if I hesitate, the robber will shoot a 9mm JHP through my left eye" for certain instead of being unsure if the gun is even loaded, if the robber has the willingness to kill and so on. But even a rough estimate of the damages (he will probably shoot someone, but is unlikely to reach a double digit body count) is usually enough to narrow down courses of action.

There are some risks which seem far-fetched. "By 2030, OnlyFans will have amassed enough porn to cause Slaneesh to manifest on Earth and destroy the future of humanity" seems not something I would even dignify with a probability. By contrast, "Climate change in the next 100 years will significantly contribute to the early deaths of at least 100M people" seems likely. "If LLMs can be scaled up to ASI, they will be unaligned" seems also very plausible.

Of course, Donald Trump has made an excellent case for reducing our dependency on fossil fuel which is entirely orthogonal to climate change. Yes, sure, most alternative forms of mobility also depend on global supply chains, e.g. for lithium batteries. I would claim that this is a higher order effect, though. If the price of oil explodes, an ICE car is just a dwelling which is too small for comfort. An electric car will still work for years before the lack of replacement batteries would immobilize it.

Humans make decisions under uncertainty all the time.

Sure, but usually they acknowledge when situations contain deep uncertainty. For a long time, many folks were acting like there wasn't any uncertainty with the human effects of climate change, or if there was, it was too minimal to matter in comparison to the known effect. Even shifting to, "Yeah, we probably can't estimate this and have very little clue, so we have to operate in a situation of deep uncertainty," is a pretty significant change.

I think your comment is a good example of the vibe shift. Back a decade ago, when I would give my position, the patterns were matched; the knives were out; I was classified as a "denier" who must be refuted. There's Nobel-winning work giving us estimates and everything! Now, when I say, "Yeah, we probably can't estimate that," the response seems more likely to be along the lines of, 'Sure, you're probably right that we probably can't estimate that. So what? We can still make decisions under uncertainty and maybe even do some things I prefer.'

"By 2030, OnlyFans will have amassed enough porn to cause Slaanesh to manifest on Earth and destroy the future of humanity" seems not something I would even dignify with a probability.

That assumes xe is not here already.

Humans make decisions under uncertainty all the time. Sure, it would help to know "if I hesitate, the robber will shoot a 9mm JHP through my left eye" for certain instead of being unsure if the gun is even loaded, if the robber has the willingness to kill and so on. But even a rough estimate of the damages (he will probably shoot someone, but is unlikely to reach a double digit body count) is usually enough to narrow down courses of action.

Sure, the problem is that actions have costs. In case of climate change the costs are astronomical in terms of money but also opportunity cost and culture. To use your example somebody will ask cashiers to buy bulletproof vest and helmets and wear it to work every day. Is it a reasonable ask for cashiers or not?

By contrast, "Climate change in the next 100 years will significantly contribute to the early deaths of at least 100M people" seems likely. "If LLMs can be scaled up to ASI, they will be unaligned" seems also very plausible.

Excellent. According to EA, the global cost of life is between $3,000 - $7,000. Lets round it up to $10,000. So The climate change is a problem on a scale of let's say $1 Trillion over 100 years, if we use insurance, we are getting somewhere around $10 billion a year problem. Even if we scaled it up to level of let's say workplace safety level of $100,000 invested to prevent one fatal accident, we are talking $100 billion a year problem. According to global climate finance the current investment is around $2 trillion a year and it is not enough, we have to invest $10 trillion a year. And it is assuming that it will actually help and completely prevent or at least cover such a loss.

Is anyone actually doing this? Are the evil UN bureaucrats taking the first derivative of their GDP(GHG) model to determine how much CO2 the world gets to emit? Have they invented psycho-history?

Deadlines have been kicking in for Washington state's climate bill, CETA, and power prices are rising as a result. They've gone up about 30% the past year, and the biggest utility, PSE, is requesting another 30% increase over the next few years. The bill required that we close the only coal plant in the state and that utilities no longer import coal-fired electricity from outside of the state. The law would have denied PSE the rate to pass on the cost of maintaining its transmission lines to generating facilities in Montana if they weren't compliant, so PSE had to make a big capital outlay to fund its own windfarms, as well as buy power from other existing wind farms.

We also have our "cap and invest" carbon tax that drives energy prices higher.

By 2030 CETA will make it mandatory that electricity generation in the state be carbon neutral. By 2045 it will be illegal to have any carbon-fired electricity generation.

Of course, Donald Trump has made an excellent case for reducing our dependency on fossil fuel which is entirely orthogonal to climate change. Yes, sure, most alternative forms of mobility also depend on global supply chains, e.g. for lithium batteries. I would claim that this is a higher order effect, though. If the price of oil explodes, an ICE car is just a dwelling which is too small for comfort. An electric car will still work for years before the lack of replacement batteries would immobilize it.

Only if the power is on, and in most of Europe that still requires Russian gas. Renewables aren't up to the task, and may not be for several more decades (if ever).

in most of Europe that still requires Russian gas

In what alternate reality?

Most of Europe is very much not dependent on Russian gas for generating electricity, particularly for electricity that is at least somewhat time flexible.

Yeah, we're dependant on north African, middle eastern and American gas.

Of course, everything is relative: we use less than half as much natural gas for our electricity generation as America does for instance.

Norway is actually the #1 supplier to EU.

I'm aware. I listed non non-eea sources.

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