site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22621 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 8, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is scarcity really still so much that people need to work 40 hours a week for the system, the same as a century ago? Probably not. You're probably getting ripped off.

You can probably get a 1920s level of existence by going on the dole and working zero hours a week. I mean, better, because you can still post on the motte when you're on the dole. Not a lot of takers though, relatively speaking.

While I agree with the premise that you hardly need to work 40 hours a week for 40 years to maintain at least equal and in most respects significantly superior material conditions than someone from the 1920s, it's impossible to get a 1920's level of existence via welfare or FIRE - living a 1920's life alongside friends, family and potential romantic partners in 1920 is significantly different to voluntarily choosing such a life while all your peers are living in 2026.

In that respect it's hardly the fault of the system, capitalism, or wealth inequality though, but simply the natural consequences of choosing to live like an oddball; at the end of the day most people complain, but their revealed preference is that they'd rather work more to consume more and fit in.

Indeed. The kinds of people complacent enough to be okay living a 1920s existence today are probably pretty contemptible.

You can’t do that, at least in the UK.

You need to provide evidence that you are working full time to apply for jobs, or they’ll cut you off. And you need to be genuinely poor or they’ll tell you to live off your savings.

You can't do it in the US as a single non-elderly man either... unless you commit disability fraud. Which turns out to be ridiculously common.

That's how you do it in the UK too. But I don't think it's trivial, especially if your life history is incompatible. Degree + good job for ten years suggests an ability to live in society, unless you can cite being assaulted or raped or some other trauma. Someone from the underclass who's perfectly able to work if they want to but is belligerent/anxious and has a history of getting sacked because he/she doesn't play well with employers is much more plausible.

People are getting generous PIP for ‘severe anxiety’, something that a single generous psychiatrist (is it time for @self_made_human to do the British would-be-NEETs of TheMotte a favor?) can diagnose you with.

is it time for @self_made_human to do the British would-be-NEETs of TheMotte a favor?

Hey I'm pretty sure I bought @Corvos a drink at some point. That's technically an anxiolytic and possibly a favor. And I don't think I'm the right person for disability adjustments, though they do take psychiatric inputs.

You need to provide evidence that you are working full time to apply for jobs, or they’ll cut you off.

I am sure that many unscrupulous individuals find a way to spend less than forty hours a week looking for a job.

And you need to be genuinely poor or they’ll tell you to live off your savings.

Naturally.

What I'm saying is that it's not a matter of people like you and me looking at zero hours of work but low living standards and opting for the alternative as revealed preference.

I'm saying that option genuinely isn't available unless you're also poor and up for committing fraud, so the lack of middle/upper class takers doesn't tell you much about its desirability.

Well, of course you don't get to take your 2020s level of wealth into the 1920s time machine. That was never part of the deal.

the lack of middle/upper class takers doesn't tell you much about its desirability.

IME a significant portion of the UMC/UC is comfortable with, shall we say, questionable tax practices (dubious business write-offs, under the table nannies, etc). I don't think it's their acute sense of honor that keeps them from doing this.

Since you mentioned the upper class, let's look at this the other way. You can withdraw 40k a year from a 1M principal indefinitely. Certainly you can live better on 40k a year than the median 1920s person, and it won't take decades to save up 1M on a high income especially if you are already practicing for your 1920s lifestyle. Yet basically no high earners do this outside of FIRE weirdos. There's just not that much demand to live like you're in the 1920s. People would rather live in the 2020s and work 40 hours a week.

Who was talking about time machines? You were saying ‘if you’d a low income and lots of free time to make art then go on the dole’ and I was saying that the system doesn’t work like that.

Re: FIRE, you life and mine are different. Even if I paid no tax and had no expenses, it would take considerably more than a decade to get that kind of money.

But that’s not the problem. The problem is that it renders you completely vulnerable, especially now that you’ve also driven yourself to zero net worth to be eligible. Even the people who don’t like their jobs know that going on the dole or claiming disability benefits as a middle class professional will be a door you can never reopen and that obviously affects their decision making.

Again, you seem to be gesturing towards ‘people say they want A but when pressed they don’t take A~ (which is a really shit version of A) so they can’t really mean what they’re saying’.

Who was talking about time machines?

The whole discussion is why we are still working as much as in 1920.

You were saying ‘if you’d a low income and lots of free time to make art then go on the dole’ and I was saying that the system doesn’t work like that.

It does, though. You just can't do it with significant wealth. The point is what it takes to get a 1920s level of existence today. It doesn't take 40 hours of work a week.

FIRE, you life and mine are different. Even if I paid no tax and had no expenses, it would take considerably more than a decade to get that kind of money.

It's not about your life or mine. You are the one who brought up the upper class. My point is that people who can amass 1M in savings in a reasonable timeframe almost never quit the rat race and live on 40k a year in perpetuity. That tells you something about the demand for such a lifestyle.

But that’s not the problem. The problem is that it renders you completely vulnerable, especially now that you’ve also driven yourself to zero net worth to be eligible. Even the people who don’t like their jobs know that going on the dole or claiming disability benefits as a middle class professional will be a door you can never reopen and that obviously affects their decision making.

Vulnerable to what, exactly?

Again, you seem to be gesturing towards ‘people say they want A but when pressed they don’t take A (which is a really shit version of A) so they can’t really mean what they’re saying’.

Sure. The best version of A is I get paid $1M a year to make art at a leisurely pace. Everything else is a "shitty version" of that. if you want 2020s living standards, you gotta work like the average 2020s citizen. Can we not conclude anything from the fact that nobody takes the 1920s material conditions gambit in return for limitless free time? I think we can.

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