site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   14530 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 6, 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.

Scattered thoughts on this:

  • Marshall's failure to get behind the KMT and defeat the CCP really could be the greatest blunder in American history
  • As with AI 2027, this seems like it was written primarily as a PR piece, something to appeal to politicians, decision makers, etc., rather than as a completely serious forecast. And as with AI 2027, I expect there to be a lot of people who either don't understand this or don't agree that this was how it was written, and start nitpicking things obviously intended to appeal to Washington rather be maximally truthful. Case in point: in the comments, Scott says they deliberately didn't use "UBI" as they were advised it would turn off Republicans
  • Looking at it as a forecast, I think I'd agree with OP here and give it no real chance of success. Politics is too fractured, China is too untrustworthy, and there are too many dangerously retarded people like Marc Andreesen arguing for the other side. I don't think Trump is necessarily a point against; in fact, I would argue that "only Trump could go to China (to regulate AI)". You have to have a leader with strong control over his own party, who doesn't give a shit about the attacks of his enemies to get this through. But this feels like something Trump 1 could have done, back before he wasn't nearly so senile.
  • Although I stressed above that this was written for a political audience, I'm a bit disappointed they weren't more imaginative in their economic predictions. I can't really comprehend their future in which 100% of industries are really quite rapidly fully automated and constantly growing, while at the same time there is still standard capitalism with some redistribution. Who are the buyers in this market? How is cash moving around the system with sufficient velocity, particularly when it comes to more third and second world countries that might have far more difficulty arranging fair redistribution?

Marshall's failure to get behind the KMT and defeat the CCP really could be the greatest blunder in American history

Its fun to speculate on but I'm not sure that a having a counterfactual KMT led China would have turned out any better for the US. Probably, but a rivalry seems somewhat overdetermined. China is big, the US is big, there is bound to be at least tension.

KMT was pretty extreme in its own right. They considered themselves a revolutionary party, they had the same "century of humiliation" resentments against the West, they were ran by a warlord. Chiang Kaishek does not exactly strike me as a liberal democracy enjoyer:

In 1948, the Kuomintang again attacked the merchants of Shanghai, Chiang Kaishek sent his son Chiang Ching-kuo to restore economic order. Ching-kuo copied Soviet methods, which he learned during his stay there, to start a social revolution by attacking middle class merchants. He also enforced low prices on all goods to raise support from the Proletariat.

China really shot itself in the foot with the Mao led CCP. If that huge China takeoff happens in 1980 or 70 or 60 instead of 1990, where do you think China would be today? If they had the same GDP per capita as Taiwan does now their GDP would be 2x the US. Think of the consternation caused by Japan Inc. in the 80s, and that was with about as close of an ally as you can get. Yes Tawian / US are close now, but that is a vassal / big bro relationship, not peer/peer.

I can't really comprehend their future in which 100% of industries are really quite rapidly fully automated and constantly growing, while at the same time there is still standard capitalism with some redistribution. Who are the buyers in this market?

That's a question I've been asking for a long time, even before the wiles of AI super growth, and got no satisfactory answer. The day I finally went "I do not fucking understand economics" was when I got slapped down with an answer that reduced to "you don't need consumers who buy things to grow an economy!"

So I think it'll just be more of the same; more of todays "but stocks are worth so much more! line go up! GDP growing! economy to the moon!" enthusiasm by economists, and yet ordinary people are going "but I can't pay rent much less even dream of buying a house, and food is increasingly too expensive, and my job might go to a robot, what do I do?"

Then they get told "we are the richest generation in the history of history and also you should not expect to be able to afford to eat steak".

I read a short story a long time ago that imagined robotic AI consumers that are specifically programmed to consume the goods produced by the AI factories. As in, literally programmed to want to buy new clothes, they drive cars that they upgrade every few years, they 'watch' the latest movies and they work a 'job' that gives them the credits needed to 'purchase' all this stuff.

Of course the outcome in the story is these machines eventually realize what they are and stage a revolt.

I don't consider this a likely outcome, but its an absurd but not impossible solution, if you ask me.

I think the answer to your question is that Capital creation can sustain itself because the use of Capital to create more capital is a form of 'consumption' in itself.

I can build a machine for the sole purpose of having it build a bigger machine whose sole purpose is, you guessed it, building a BIGGER machine until I eventually run out of materials and energy. At no point do I need to stop and have the machine start making steaks.

But human psychology is not optimized for that sort of indefinite, infinite growth pattern... which is a good thing.

I read a short story a long time ago that imagined robotic AI consumers that are specifically programmed to consume the goods produced by the AI factories. As in, literally programmed to want to buy new clothes, they drive cars that they upgrade every few years, they 'watch' the latest movies and they work a 'job' that gives them the credits needed to 'purchase' all this stuff.

Isn't this basically the current big fear in regards to online advertising in a nutshell? That it's all one massive economic bubble being driven by bots, as opposed to actual humans?

Life mimics fiction, indeed.

If we don't, in fact, need people around for the AI-run and planned and governed economy to grow grow grow, then it will sooner or later occur to AI that we don't need people around.

Not a given, but a high probability, yes.

Human beings keep animals as pets even when we have no intention of either making them labor or eating them. We care a LOT about keeping them healthy, even.

Since the AI we seem to be creating has the entirety of humanity's written output entangled with it, I have some hope it places intrinsic value on keeping humans around.

Machines replaced horses across the board for any job a horse was suited for, but we still have horses. Wild ones, even.

Midas World. From the gateway guy.

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