site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20326 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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 think it's worth noting that the idea that selfish old people are hoarding all the goodies and thereby screwing over the young is one that's been around for a while. When I graduated college into a weak job market (30 or 40 years ago) that was a very popular idea. (Allegedly) old people weren't retiring and making room for young people; old people were preventing new housing from being built in order to enhance the value of houses they had bought for a song many years ago; old people insisting on fat social security payouts they didn't really need which would result in an insolvent system; old people pushing the government to take on lots and lots of debt which would have to be paid by future generations. etc. etc.

I kind of believed it at the time, but the fact that it's so persistent makes me a little skeptical.

That being said, assuming AI doesn't destroy us but instead generates a lot of new wealth, it's pretty obvious that the benefits of that wealth won't be distributed equally. And I could easily see a situation where people who happen to own equities, real estate, and other capital goods end up being the big winners while everyone else licks the street. (Ok, that's an exaggeration, but if a utopia emerges where everyone gets UBI and can live the life of their dreams, such people might still be pretty unhappy if there is a sort of permanent aristocracy in place.) And it would make sense that this aristocracy would be disproportionately old people.

I could also see it happening that medical advances allow this aristocracy (and everyone else) to dramatically extend their lifespans, which would arguably exacerbate this problem. From an abstract perspective I would rather be a peasant in a world where everyone gets UBI and a super-long (healthy) lifespan than a fat cat businessman in that world's past. But I can see how people might get upset at being consigned to a permanent lower class.

When I graduated college into a weak job market (30 or 40 years ago) that was a very popular idea. (Allegedly) old people weren't retiring and making room for young people; old people were preventing new housing from being built in order to enhance the value of houses they had bought for a song many years ago; old people insisting on fat social security payouts they didn't really need which would result in an insolvent system; old people pushing the government to take on lots and lots of debt which would have to be paid by future generations. etc. etc.

Except for not retiring, these all seem true both now and when you (and I) were young, but not true 100 years ago. I'd argue that the alienation of youth could easily be responding to a real change.

The alienation has persisted for over a half century, because the complaints have been true over that period.

Except for not retiring, these all seem true both now and when you (and I) were young, but not true 100 years ago.

What's your basis for believing this? In 1926, roughly a third of Americans worked in agriculture. I can easily imagine young people complaining at that time that old people owned and controlled all the best land in the United States.

Of course, I don't know one way or another. But I do know that in a free market economy, there are always capital goods and other resources in short supply. And that, logically, older people frequently have had a better chance than young people to acquire and accumulate those resources.

In 1926 the median American was around 26 years old. Thanks to the baby boom, the median wasn't much older in 1970, 28, and was 30 in 1980. Today, it's 39, and will likely be over 40 by 2030. The old have never been so proportionately numerous.

This is aggravated by the fact that economic growth has been declining since the 1980s, and especially since the end of the 90s. Barring 2021, all but the oldest Millennials never experienced 4% GDP growth as a member of the labor force. All but the youngest of Gen Z have never experienced 3% GDP growth in the workforce, again barring 2021.

In 1926 the median American was around 26 years old. Thanks to the baby boom, the median wasn't much older in 1970, 28, and was 30 in 1980. Today, it's 39, and will likely be over 40 by 2030. The old have never been so proportionately numerous.

I agree, but why does this matter? I mean, there were certainly a lot of rich and powerful old people in 1926 in the United States. Enough for young people to form a belief that old people were hoarding the goodies.

This is aggravated by the fact that economic growth has been declining since the 1980s, and especially since the end of the 90s. Barring 2021, all but the oldest Millennials ever experienced 4% GDP growth as a member of the labor force. All but the youngest of Gen Z have never experienced 3% GDP growth in the workforce, again barring 2021.

I did a random search, and the graph I found indicated that in the 1970s and 1980s, there were a lot of years with GDP growth well under 4% and sometimes under 0%.

There really weren't a lot of old people around in 1926 period, let alone a government subsidized upper-middle class of retirees. In 1920 less than 1/20 Americans were over the age of 65. Now it's 1/6.

That there were bad years in the 70s and early 80s doesn't change the fact that no one under the age of 40 has experienced anything like the sustained economic growth we had from 1985-2005. The 1970s sucked compared to the 50s and 60s but still had faster growth than the 2000s, 2010s, or 2020s so far.

In 1920 less than 1/20 Americans were over the age of 65

In my view, 1/20 is more than enough to form the basis for class resentment. And note that the line doesn't necessarily need to be drawn at 65. For example, I myself am in my 50s and I could envision a lot of young people resenting the fact that I bought a house many years ago which, if I were to sell it today, would provide me with a huge windfall on the back of some young couple who desperately needs a residence near a major city.

That there were bad years in the 70s and early 80s doesn't change the fact that no one under the age of 40 has experienced anything like the sustained economic growth we had from 1985-2005.

FWIW, when I graduated college (after 1985) there was a recession on; I couldn't find a job; I ended up pursuing post-graduate studies instead; and I very much resented old people for much the same reasons young people do today. It felt like the ladder had been pulled up.

In my view, 1/20 is more than enough to form the basis for class resentment.

To trigger class resentment, the elderly would need to be a privileged class. There are two institutions that allow this in the modern west: pensions, and mass homeownership. America doesn't really have pensions until the New Deal, and the only non-rich Americans who own their own homes in that period are farmers. The (middle-class and below - class resentment of the rich elderly is obviously real, but is about class and not age) urban elderly were seen as pitiable before these institutions came into their own.

I can't speak for 160-acre family farms in the early 20th century US, but in the (very long) era of subsistence family farms in the west, gramps is generally perceived as a net positive (but is still allowed to starve before the prime-age family members when food gets short). So I don't think there would be widescale resentment of the elderly among the smallholding class either.

To trigger class resentment, the elderly would need to be a privileged class. There are two institutions that allow this in the modern west: pensions, and mass homeownership. America doesn't really have pensions until the New Deal, and the only non-rich Americans who own their own homes in that period are farmers.

I tend to disagree with this. According to the census bureau, the home ownership rate in the United States in 1900 was 46.5%. Even in more urban states such as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, the rate was approximately 1/3.

And that's assuming that pensions and home ownership are the only way a group could end up as a resented class. I also disagree with that.

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