site banner
PaperclipPerfector  16d ago (text post)   40956 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 8, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It is generally pro-social to maintain the idea that you'd have to be a deranged nut to resort to assassination

Not if you're schizophrenic it isn't. And the fact you have offered this alternative take makes it impossible for me to believe you believe your first claim, since you are in effect saying that you will make the first claim whether you believe it or not because it is better for society to throw the mentally ill under a bus than it is to be honest about what got him shot (poisonous ideology).

And the fact you have offered this alternative take makes it impossible for me to believe you believe your first claim

Willingness to consider alternative explanations makes me untrustworthy?

Nice talking to you.

Yeah I would run too. Because it isn't willingness to consider alternative explanations, that is merely a pat justification. You immediately came up with your alternative, in the exact same post as your original, and your alternative is to lie and claim the original explanation. That is what makes you duplicitous. That and your feigned moral outrage while you scramble to throw the mentally ill under the bus.

You are both making shitty arguments, and between @Skibboleth's low-effort dismissiveness, your stooping to personal attacks, and the crappy quality of this thread in general, I am exercising great restraint in not handing out bans even to people who really probably need at least a day or two to go sit in a corner and take deep breaths. So this is your opportunity to back off and take deep breaths voluntarily.

Well it's a good thing I checked my notifications before replying to one of the other lazy attacks on the mentally ill. Why are you bolding voluntarily by the way?

Because the alternative is a ban.

That was always the alternative? You did it to belittle me, to paint my perfectly lucid and even tempered replies as unhinged. Because you had nothing else.

Yes, the alternative to calming down and ceasing your belligerence is a timeout. That is always the alternative.

I do not think you are unhinged. I think you're angry and you're angry-posting. You may think your replies are perfectly lucid and even-tempered. They are not. I'm really trying to cut people some slack right now, but I'm running out of slack.

Alright, Gemini explained that my incredulous shorthand looks the same as anger to an outside observer, and I can see how it reads that way now so I am sorry. I am annoyed though, because I anticipated a mod response, as I do in any interaction with Skibboleth, and Grok cleared both those posts as lucid and even handed before I posted them.

Edit: clarity

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