site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15242 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 25, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Open carrying weapons is common in some American states, and nowhere else. By definition, this makes red states the exception. To each their own, but the base prior has to be that the 'woman wielding the unwieldy weapon was wrong'. The outrage was contrived.

Yeah, by default, weapons are illegal. If they believe otherwise, then the burden of proof is on the Americans. And the pudding ain't sweet.

the base prior has to be that the 'woman wielding the unwieldy weapon was wrong'

I am, personally, never going to be upset about a woman (especially a girl!) carrying a knife around, no matter what the letter of the law says. It would be great if we lived in a world where the average adult man couldn't trivially overpower any woman they see due to inherent physical asymmetries, but that is not our reality. A knife makes it possible for a girl to defend against a predator.

Upthread there's a link about a gypsy grooming gang that was active in the city where this took place, the guy in this case may well be a gypsy, ergo I side with the 12 year old girl against the weird brown creep who was filming her.

I will concede that my support of the girl in this case is not unconditional. If there was evidence that she was trying to rob the "Bulgarian" man by brandishing her weapons, I would (begrudgingly) side with him. Merely scaring creepy men away from the place where you and your friends like to hang out is, actually, based.

Merely scaring creepy men away from the place where you and your friends like to hang out is, actually, based.

Should public parks belong to whoever is most successful at scaring everyone who's not their friends away from them? I'm afraid that's how you get ghettoes. Filled mostly with older teen/young adult men, not young girls, mind.

I'm afraid that's how you get ghettoes.

A Scottish ghetto? In Scotland?

Should public parks belong to whoever is most successful at scaring everyone who's not their friends away from them?

My response to this doesn't quite rise to the level of a gigachad, but it's close. I am very much not pro "CHOP/CHAZ"-adjacent behavior, and if it ever reaches that point, with youth gangs permanently occupying large public spaces and accosting anyone who passes near, that is obviously bad. But I think groups of youths having a place they feel is "their spot" and yelling at anyone who comes too close to "fuck off" is just teens doing dumb teen shit, and that's what this tends to look like in practice. My experience is they're also likely to try to bum some smokes or get you to buy them some booze. Antisocial, sure, but I wouldn't say it's turning the neighborhood into a ghetto. I think this kind of low-level dysfunction is pretty close to unavoidable in urban areas without extreme measures.

Belt knives of any size are legal in Canada as well -- I don't know that it's come up, but I doubt there's any law about toting around an ax, either. For that matter, carrying a rifle around is typically not specifically outlawed here, although it tends to cause more trouble than it's worth in urban areas.

There's a semi famous case where some busybody Very Concerned Citizen daubed in a kid riding the bus home from target shooting because they noticed him trying to hide his .22 wrapped up in a jacket or somesuch. Extensive prosecution resulted in a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon -- the ruling as I recall claims that there would have been no violation if he'd carried it openly. (although I imagine the system would have tried pretty hard to generate something in that case)

Is Canada OK? I think it's not bad.

The open carrying of weapons has been the norm across the world for 99% of human history. It only became banned when modern high capacity states gained the capacity to suppress vigilantism.

This is another example of how the modern right has erased class from their view of history. It was not normal in almost any premodern society to allow just anyone to open carry weapons of any kind. The carrying of weapons was nearly always carefully prescribed according to class-status concerns, and the carrying of weapons served as a denotation of class. The peasantry and urban underclass were almost never allowed to openly carry weapons without punishment.

and the carrying of weapons served as a denotation of class

Which creates a different angle, where banning the carry of weapons is meant specifically to stratify a society by class. The [modern right] is more egalitarian than the [modern left], so it's natural they'd push in an egalitarian direction.

This kind of ties back to militia stuff too; the class of person expected to defend the society from outside threats when called up with his personal weapon is naturally worthy to bear that arm at any other time. To do otherwise is stealing, in a way.

This is another example of how the modern right has erased class from their view of history. It was not normal in almost any premodern society to allow just anyone to open carry weapons of any kind. The carrying of weapons was nearly always carefully prescribed according to class-status concerns, and the carrying of weapons served as a denotation of class. The peasantry and urban underclass were almost never allowed to openly carry weapons without punishment.

There was also a big difference between urban and rural areas. The extreme case was the Roman Republic, where all classes of citizen were allowed to open-carry outside the pomerium and only lictors attending a dictator were allowed to open-carry inside the pomerium. In medieval and early modern England the "freedom of the City" meant the right to carry weapons inside city walls, and even the nobility didn't have it by default unless a specific noble had been granted the freedom of a specific city (or more likely was an officer in a regiment which had been collectively granted the freedom). There is a curious welcoming ritual every time the Monarch visits the City of London (i.e. the historical square mile inside the old walls, which is also the modern financial district) which is intended to obfuscate the question of whether royal guards need the permission of the City authorities to carry weapons inside the City. Whereas all Protestant Englishmen enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms in the country from the 1689 Bill of Rights up to the introduction of modern gun control.

No, it’s common in western history for the entire free population(granted, not 100% of the population) to have open carry privileges. After the abolition of slavery the law often restricted it to ‘respectable’ citizens, not nobles- that respectable citizens could obtain concealed carry licenses easily remained the law on the books until Austria-Hungary fell, at least.

I didn't refer to nobles, only to the peasantry and underclass and to class more broadly. While you start by rejecting my point, you then outline exactly what I'm talking about: Only the free, not the enslaved or serf populations; only "respectable" citizens, not the underclass. We can debate how we would sort the participants in this particular dispute into historical categories for the purpose of examining it in a hypothetical Roman or Medieval or Tokugawa legal context.

What I think we agree on is that the statement I was responding to

The open carrying of weapons has been the norm across the world for 99% of human history. It only became banned when modern high capacity states gained the capacity to suppress vigilantism.

Fails to take into account class as context. It was nearly always the norm for someone to be allowed to carry weapons in varying contexts, an upper class that can variously be called citizens, nobles, knights, respectable, bourgeois, free men, as the case may be. It was nearly always the case that there also existed classes of people who were not allowed to carry weapons in varying contexts, and who could be punished by the law or directly by their betters for doing so, whether we call them slaves or serfs or peasants or untouchables or the poor or foreigners or children or what have you.

It's not the case that one can say simply or easily that everyone carried weapons all the time and it was no problem before the rise of the modern state.

Hell, even in America, even in the wild west, the shootout at the OK Corral starts because there's a rule in Tombstone that you couldn't carry guns within city limits, and Wyatt Earp was on his way to enforce that law.

The population of Anglo-Saxon England forbidden from carrying weapons was around 10%. ‘Not at the very bottom’ seems to have been the rule of thumb for lots of Germanic societies.

I don’t know exactly what ‘respectable citizen’ meant under Austrian law at the time, but it probably excluded more along the lines of the bottom third than the bottom two-thirds; even today former Hapsburg lands are unusual in Europe for their relatively liberal policies on concealed carry licenses.

The unfree villein population of England pre Norman conquest was around 60-70%, and they required the permission of their lord to possess or carry arms.

Not weapons as such, but there are many tools the peasants would carry on a daily basis which could be used to hurt/intimidate someone if needed. You'd need to be able to fight off wild animals outside the cities. It would be bizarre for someone not to carry a knife at all times - they're just too useful.

Of course, the knife the average person carried looked very different from a jeweled dagger or weapon of war.

The modern-day equivalent would probably be those guys who carry a Leatherman around in a belt clip. It's not the kind of thing that would draw much attention at all, and if it did even the most anti-gun person would probably assume that the guy was an outdoorsman or often made a bunch of minor repairs, not that he was open-carrying a weapon.

Do you know if it is legal for someone to walk around with a Leatherman in the UK or is that a concealed weapon?

Sort of. UK law allows you to carry a folding knife with a non-locking blade up to 3 inches without reason or justification. Most Leathermans have locking blades, so they're out, but there may be older ones or similar tools from other companies that qualify. BUT, you are allowed to carry one if you have a good reason to carry one (other than defense), so if you're hiking or use it for work or something it technically wouldn't be a problem. I have no idea how strictly this is enforced.

It's a "lock knife", so it's illegal to carry one if you're not a tradie in the process of doing tradie things.

It was also fairly common for anyone to have a cane/walking stick/cudgel with him at any time.

But the size, shape, and type of tools/weapons/accoutrements allowed to ordinary folk was heavily regulated and violators harshly punished in urban areas throughout European history.

Yeah, you couldn't hold your ground against someone armed with a real weapon (like a noble or their household) with what the peasants carried around.

I would imagine that would depend very much on the combatants, right? There's a lot of combinations of guys where I'd bet on A with a shovel over B with a broadsword.

I'm more getting at the fact that at many points in history, a peasant who walked about with a real weapon of war was liable to punishment under local custom and law.

Whosoever draws a sword and does not strike will be fined 1 grivna.

(c) Russian Law Code, XI century

The big unspoken filter is being able to afford a sword. A peasant would have an axe or a knife tucked into his sash. Both of the utility variety.

Fascinating. Thanks for pointing that one out.

A sheathed sword ia still "open carrying", though I guess the girl would be screwed either way. Wonder how much this would be in today's money.

Pretty based law, I have to say.

Drawing a sword is equivalent to brandishing, which AFAIK is illegal essentially everywhere unless you are in a situation where pulling the trigger would be permissible self-defence.

From cursory googling, a grivna at that time was an about 200 gram silver bar and equaled the cost of a combat steed or a year's wages of a Norwegian mercenary.

Weregild for the murder of a free man was 40 grivnas, for comparison.

Most ancient societies had rigidly (lethally) enforced rules about who was allowed to carry weapons.

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