site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25709 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 4, 2025

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.

They're not going to have nightmares or be tortured by their consciences. They're just going to remember you as a whiny, blubbering coward. If you can't change your fate, then facing it with dignity is better than making yourself pathetic. You aren't helping people do what they are going to do anyway.

Banning people from a forum, of course, is nothing like executing them, and I feel no remorse for banning people who deserve it, so arguing that it's "cucked" to refuse to accept a banning just means you think there is some virtue in being an undignified annoyance. There isn't.

They're just going to remember you as a whiny, blubbering coward.

That was the ending of the James Cagney movie Angels with Dirty Faces: the childhood friend, now a priest, of the gangster Rocky asks him to beg for mercy on the way to the electric chair so the gang of juvenile delinquents who idolise him will turn away from the criminal path:

In Rocky's last few hours before execution, Jerry visits. He sees the negative impact Rocky could have on the Dead End Kids and asks him to beg for mercy on his way to the death house, citing the impact it would have on the gang, ruining their romantic image of the gangster lifestyle. Rocky refuses, telling Jerry that his reputation is all that he has left.

As they enter the execution room, Rocky shakes Jerry's hand and wishes him well before walking to the electric chair. Then out of nowhere Rocky breaks down, begging and screaming for mercy, and seemingly dies a coward's death. Later, Soapy and the gang read in the newspapers of how Rocky "turned yellow" in the face of his execution. The gang no longer knows what to think about Rocky or the criminal lifestyle, and Jerry asks them to accompany him to say a prayer for "a boy who couldn't run as fast as I could".

Agreed. I would think stating eloquently that they are evil while at the same time dying with dignity will have more affect compared to a man who seemingly is weak.

They're just going to remember you as a whiny, blubbering coward.

Pure vanity. A grave injustice and your life hang in the balance, this is not the time for such superficial concerns. If morality requires you to cry, you cry. If your duty requires you to die despised, then you swallow your ego and holler like a bahamian.

Btw, I don’t know, and thanks to mods’ I won’t know, but I’m pretty sure that Hlynka, as the NCO law-order-honor-type, would not back my defense at all, which I find amusing. As is tradition, since I’ve always maintained he should not be banned, even though he himself was the most pro-censorship of the mods.

The object level is important. Geeks have an easily exploited habit of trying to make rules that are agnostic to circumstances.

What's a good way to treat criminals? Put them in jail. What's a good way to treat accused criminals? Figure out if the accusation is correct, and put them in jail if they are. What's the best way to treat accused criminals if you don't want to figure out if they're correct? There isn't one. Anything you do has to have the step "figure out if the accusation is correct".

If Hlykna is unjustly accused, almost anything he does in response is okay. If he's justly accused, almost anything except submitting to jail is wrong. If he's justly accused and thinks he isn't, that doesn't change what responses are right and wrong, which depend on the true situation, not on what's in his head.

If you really believe that begging might save you, there is an argument for it, but otherwise, no, I can only despise the "morality" you advocate.

Also, your example is of someone being unjustly and arbitrarily executed, not someone being justly punished for his actions.

You've said that begging here CAN save you, even rescue you from a permaban. Which encourages begging, which is why you shouldn't do it.

That is not what I said. You did not misunderstand me. You are pretending to misunderstand me. Stop doing that.

I did not misunderstand you, nor am I pretending to. I am merely seeing the issue from a perspective you don't share. If you permaban someone and they go away and never come back and never contact you again, they remain permabanned; this is what "permaban" means, of course. If they go to you and request to come back and promise they'll be a good boy, you might let them come back. You don't want to call that begging, but I can't see how it is anything else; you're saying the only way back is through the supplicant's door.

I'm going to pretend you're not being a bad faith ankle-biter here.

The only way back is by promising you will follow the rules and not continue breaking the rules. Under those circumstances, we will consider unbanning someone.

No one should consider this unreasonable.

The alternative is no forgiveness ever.

You can disingenuously characterize this as "Begging can save you from banning" but you know that is not remotely the same thing.

We've never rescinded a ban because someone begged (and once or twice someone has tried).

Also worth noting that as far as I can recall, no one has ever actually petitioned us to be unbanned other than the ones who pleaded for leniency as soon as it happened (and then flew into a rage when we said no). Quite a few people have complained that their banning was unwarranted, and a few times someone else has petitioned on behalf of a banned member, but this scenario in which someone genuinely asks us for amnesty (whether you call it "begging" or not) is to date entirely hypothetical.

Is it clearly stated anywhere that you can appeal and when?

Why you use "permaban" name?

It is a permaban... for anyone who "takes their ban like a man", to paraphrase slightly. But apparently if someone comes back hat-in-hand begging for forgiveness and promises to be a good boy, it's not necessarily a permaban. So it's part of a dominance game.

More comments

No, it is not. It's not a formal rule. And no, we're not going to rewrite and rename things just to satisfy autists.

Concur with Nybbler in that it shouldn't be called "permaban", then. Call it indefinite ban and leave the door open.

If you really believe that begging might save you, there is an argument for it, but otherwise, no, I can only despise the "morality" you advocate.

You expressed skepticism earlier that it would inflict guilt-ridden nightmares upon the executioners - but supposing it provably did, would your stance change? Or what if your death is to be witnessed by the public? If you think you're being unjustly put to death, it stands to reason you dislike the regime doing this to you, and want to use what little agency you have left to raise the odds that it'll be toppled or reformed. This is to say, it stands to reason that you want to make yourself a martyr. All else being equal, making as much of a stink as possible when they drag you to the gallows increases the odds of your death having consequences for your killers, whether it makes them second-guess themselves or drives public opinion against them.

Notably, this needn't take the form of whining and blubbering; you could also try and make an impression on the basis of fighting spirit, struggling and cursing your murderers until your last breath, to try and inspire others to show the same rebellious courage - even if you have ~0 odds of actually freeing yourself or injuring your captors. Much manlier, but also very different from "facing death with dignity".

I guess it depends on what kind of role you have the look of. e.g. if you're a nebbish-looking student protestor, or a woman, you'll probably make a more memorable martyr if the cameras capture you as a weeping victim slaughtered by merciless monsters. If you're a big strong guy, going out as a fiery revolutionary might be inspirational and make you look the bigger man, while a sobbing breakdown, rightly or wrongly, might indeed look pathetic.

(To be clear, none of this is about Hlynka's behavior, I'm just curious about the meta-argument.)

You expressed skepticism earlier that it would inflict guilt-ridden nightmares upon the executioners - but supposing it provably did, would your stance change?

Well, now we're deep into hypotheticals having nothing to do with the original example.

If I knew that undignified groveling and blubbering would make my killers feel bad, but not save my life, would I do it? I like to think not. If it would serve some instrumental purpose - like making a martyr of myself that would stir public pity such as to prevent future killings? Assuming I was capable of making such a rational and strategic decision in such a moment, maybe?

Notably, this needn't take the form of whining and blubbering; you could also try and make an impression on the basis of fighting spirit, struggling and cursing your murderers until your last breath, to try and inspire others to show the same rebellious courage - even if you have ~0 odds of actually freeing yourself or injuring your captors. Much manlier, but also very different from "facing death with dignity".

Fighting them and cursing them seems much more dignified than begging and crying. At least I wouldn't die ashamed.

If I knew that undignified groveling and blubbering would make my killers feel bad, but not save my life, would I do it? I like to think not.

and I would do

I would prefer to be able to take actions earlier (when they would be more effective) but in such situation I expect that my priority would be to cause whatever damage I can do, even if i would be only a minor annoyance to them

Fighting them and cursing them seems much more dignified than begging and crying.

+1, though not on shame reasoning but because I guess it would be a bit more effective

(hopefully I will not have reason to apply it in practice - but I will not reduce my opinion about someone being unjustly executed and begging/crying/etc, though I would harshly disapprove of offering to turn traitor at last moment)

but otherwise, no, I can only despise the "morality" you advocate.

On what grounds? Your idea of 'manlyness'? You're generally liberal, but the sex stuff is your achilles heel.

Also, your example is of someone being unjustly and arbitrarily executed, not someone being justly punished for his actions.

Right, but I don't think Hlynka thinks he's been justly punished for his actions. Personally I don't consider most of the permabans the mods hand out justified.

On what grounds? Your idea of 'manlyness'? You're generally liberal, but the sex stuff is your achilles heel.

That's a general problem with the old liberalism. Men are still supposed to act traditionally, but then accept worse results for it. A man who stands up for his rights in court will just get slapped down and get a tougher sentence than one who pleads guilty and begs for leniency, and liberals applaud this -- but still despise the latter man.

On what grounds? Your idea of 'manlyness'? You're generally liberal, but the sex stuff is your achilles heel.

I don't even know what you mean by "sex stuff" here. I despise cowardice, weakness, and lack of dignity and self-respect.

Right, but I don't think Hlynka thinks he's been justly punished for his actions.

Actually, he was pretty straightforward about his disagreement with Zorba and acknowledging that this disagreement necessarily led to his being removed as mod and then banned. We had many conversations with him: I don't know that he necessarily agreed that he was "justly punished" (obviously he wanted to keep doing what he was doing and he did not want us to make him stop) but he knew what he was doing and at the time seemed to accept the consequences.

Personally I don't consider most of the permabans the mods hand out justified.

This does not surprise me.

I think you know what I mean – there’s a tension between liberal egalitarianism which you generally support, and your traditional view of manhood as special protectors and providers, paying for everyting before going to the gallows with a smile. You foist plenty of duties on men you would never foist on women. They’re not even allowed to make a fuss on their last moments on earth when they’re wrongfully executed. By contrast you indulge women their tears in every situation, and tend to view them as innocent victims, like your idol feminist JK rowling (I’m not talking about the "anti-trans" stuff, which is fine and compatible with liberalism).

I am greatly amused. You talk like you know who I am, yet very little is recognizable. ("My feminist idol"? My gosh.)

I didn't mean to suggest anything untoward in your steadfast support for this writer of beloved children's books. I tried and failed to think of a softer alternative to the word 'idol'. Your 'pal', jk rowling?

The only support I remember was complaining when people blatantly lie about her stance on trans stuff. Like at https://www.themotte.org/post/930/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/200394?context=8#context

softer alternative to the word 'idol'. Your 'pal', jk rowling?

Why you think it is accurate at all? Have you mistaken @Amadan with someone else?

More comments

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