site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   23606 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.

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.

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.

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?

I don’t know what the big deal is, if you repeatedly defend Tucker Carlson against his critics, I will call him your idol and your pal. Plus he praised the literary value of jk rowling’s books, that’s a level of personal dedication maybe five adults on the planet can muster.

if you repeatedly defend Tucker Carlson against his critics, I will call him your idol and your pal.

depending on which critics

if you defend his lies, then I am going to laugh at them (did it recently)

if you defend him from lies told about him, then it is a noble thing

I am entirely fine with protesting when someone lies about about harmful people or institutions I hate (partially for strategic reasons, I do not want actual arguments to be damaged)

And for how much "if you defend his lies, then I am going to laugh at them (did it recently)" happens depends on context, there are places where I repeatedly write how XYZ is terrible and bad and places where I repeatedly defend the same XYZ. As in one place people adore it and in other hate it, overdoing both.

Plus he praised the literary value of jk rowling’s books, that’s a level of personal dedication maybe five adults on the planet can muster.

I am also willing to do this, they are not great but much better than average and better than 99% of books (this is not a high praise, I consider >98% of books as trash unfit for any use)

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