site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25712 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 11, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I hate to do this, but last time we did this, you were unable to even explain what it is that those terms meant. Would you like to take another go at it?

Thank you for reminding me of that rather unpleasant experience. I would actually not like to take another go at it. Anyone wanting elaboration is welcome to read the thread.

Fair enough on the positive claim concerning meta-ethics. If you'd prefer to leave that one in incoherence, you can leave that one in incoherence.

Would you like to take a shot at your negative claim with analogy to philosophy of mathematics? Any sort of clarity or argument there?

No, I showed that my point was coherent, it is beyond me why you don't see that. It's not really my problem at this point.

Would you like to take a shot at your negative claim with analogy to philosophy of mathematics? Any sort of clarity or argument there?

Not with you, I'm afraid. @Primaprimaprima is far more pleasant to talk to, hence I am more than happy to discuss that in detail with them. You're welcome to read that thread and make of it what you will.

No, I showed that my point was coherent

We can just read the comments. You never told me what your terms meant, because you couldn't. Perhaps you missed my edit back then, even though I recall doing it quickly, so I'll repeat it here just in case:

Let's change the syntax to make it clear. Suppose you had said, "I know my values are just as blurf (or not) as everyone else's." Suppose I inquired as to what you meant by values being blurf or not, or multiple values being equally blurf. It's not really helpful to say that there is nothing objective about blurf. It still simply fails to tell me anything about what blurf actually means.

Not with you, I'm afraid. @Primaprimaprima is far more pleasant to talk to, hence I am more than happy to discuss that in detail with them.

I'm a pretty pleasant guy. What have I said that is not pleasant? I think you might be confusing a pleasant conversationalist with a pleasant conversation. Most people don't like conversations where large problems with their stated positions are brought to the fore. That's fair enough. But that's probably what you find displeasing, the clear and obvious feeling in your gut that you know your position has a problem, and that you don't know what to do about it. I sympathize; I've been there. Just a piece of advice, though; thinking that you're going to be able to avoid the problem by avoiding the person who points out the problem never works. Moreover, it's unMottely.

You know, I'm a person who has been described, in this very thread as:

I definitely don't have @self_made_human's endless energy for arguing here, but his takes tend to be quite grounded

Consider what that means when someone actually exhausts my patience. I think that says more about you than it does about me.

I'm a pretty pleasant guy. What have I said that is not pleasant

After all, even the most saintly are unlikely to like you very much if you say things along the lines of:

Now you're just throwing a hilarious Internet Shit Fit for having gotten called out on it. (About three comments! That's "for a while"! Mucho Internet Shit Fit...)

I'm sure you think you are very pleasant, and that you are a great conversationalist. I'm sure your mother thinks you're very handsome too.

Just a piece of advice, though; thinking that you're going to be able to avoid the problem by avoiding the person who points out the problem never works.

I think it works great. If I didn't have a firm commitment to not blocking anyone on this site, I would have blocked you a long time back. The next best thing is to ignore you, which is what I'm doing from now on. Being "unMottley" doesn't come at the cost of my sanity.

I'm sure you think you are very pleasant, and that you are a great conversationalist. I'm sure your mother thinks you're very handsome too.

Reported for antagonism.

Not because it's particularly bad (it obviously isn't), but because I hold you to higher standards! You are better than that.

Thank you? What am I supposed to do now, warn myself? Temp-ban myself? I believe that the Ancient Chinese have written on the topic, but I'll leave it in the hands of the other mods.

My suggestion: Just take in onboard as constructive criticism. Look, this isn't a big deal, as so often I'm just writing what comes to mind without thinking much about it.

I was kidding, I get what you mean, and agree.

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