site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   41999 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.

Hah, alright big-brain, let’s play:

Has there ever been a shooter who got cold feet at the last minute, decided not to pull the trigger, and went home quietly?

Come on, show me your epistemic prowess. Impress me.

  • -29

Richard Paul Pavlick was prepared to take out JFK in 1960, by loading his car with dynamite and ramming it into Kennedy's. He backed out after seeing Kennedy with his wife and children.

Has there ever been a shooter who got cold feet at the last minute, decided not to pull the trigger, and went home quietly?

Yes, it should be expected that, even people who not only fantasize about the deed, but also prepare and get to the place, only about 1 in 10-20 actually follow with the plan.

See one of most famous assassinations of history. Out of six volunteers, working as a team, dedicated to their cause and willing to sacrifice their lives, when the time came, five just did nothing at all.

(one of them changed his mind later and changed the course of history, but this is another tale)

The motorcade passed the first assassin, Mehmedbašić. Danilo Ilić had placed him in front of the garden of the Mostar Café and armed him with a bomb.[74] Mehmedbašić failed to act. Ilić had placed Vaso Čubrilović next to Mehmedbašić, arming him with a pistol and a bomb. He too failed to act. Further along the route, Ilić had placed Nedeljko Čabrinović on the opposite side of the street near the Miljacka river, arming him with a bomb.

At 10:10 am,[75] Franz Ferdinand's car approached and Čabrinović threw his bomb. The bomb bounced off the folded back convertible cover into the street.[76] The bomb's timed detonator caused it to explode under the next car, putting that car out of action, leaving a 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m), 6.5-inch-deep (170 mm) crater,[75] and wounding 16–20 people.[77]

Čabrinović swallowed his cyanide pill and jumped into the Miljacka river. Čabrinović survived the suicide attempt, as the old cyanide only induced vomiting, and the Miljacka was only 13 cm deep due to the hot, dry summer.[78] Police dragged Čabrinović out of the river, and he was severely beaten by the crowd before being taken into custody.

The procession sped away towards the Town Hall leaving the disabled car behind. Cvjetko Popović, Gavrilo Princip, and Trifun Grabež failed to act as the motorcade passed them at high speed.[79]

Well done! I think your analysis is good—even with team pressure, many still chicken out, so the solo chickening rate is almost certainly higher than that rate.

I have no idea.

Even if such would-be shooters exist, the idea this Robinson is one seems to be justified by absolutely nothing, except the fanfic you wrote.

I have no idea

I advise you not to play on prediction markets, and to consult someone you trust before making large financial decisions like signing a mortgage.

  • -31

Is this what you mean by "Interesting, intelligent people being banned for petty rule violations"?

You are filling the mod queue with these obnoxious attempts to bait people. I'm sure in your own mind you're a brilliant debater pwning the chuds. I am not impressed.

I'm not going to permaban you. I'm going to ban you for two days. In your own words: "Do better."

You just are a deeply unpleasant person suffering from dunning kruger

If you know someone is trying to bait you into this kind of response, don't take the bait.

I won the majority of the bets I made to date, the ones I have open can plasibly still turn around, but they're looking pretty good, actually, and I paid off my mortgage.

I'm also taking bets on this issue, and I actually think making future predictions is much more productive here than writing fanfics based on your psychoanalysis of the shooter. I believe the incestigations are going to keep turning up evidence that he was a radicalized leftist, and there were no personal motives for his shooting.

I believe the incestigations are going to keep turning up evidence that he was a radicalized leftist, and there were no personal motives for his shooting.

Why the need to "believe"?

The shooter is alive and, according to news, cooperating with the investigation. Just have patience, just wait how he explains his deed, how he answers the question "why you did it?"

Why the need to "believe"?

Because I do not exist outside time and space, and need to wait for events to unfold, before I know their shape and sequence. Until then I am stuck believing what they will look like, based on what happened in the past.

I believe the incestigations are going to keep turning up evidence that he was a radicalized leftist

Incestigations do tend to produce distorted results, I hear. So you’re probably correct, Rorschach.

  • -20

Somewhere in here you were lamenting how the place is just a husk of it's former self. Is your recollection of it's glory days that of people grasping on to typos of their interlocutor, in an attempt to avoid making predictions? Does your tone throughout this conversation represent what you think we should strive for?

I think you misunderstood my comment. I’m saying of course they’ll turn up evidence of more leftist radicalization because that’s what people want to be found.

  • -18

Well, free to provide some scenario that might disprove your theory then, because if you expect the same thing to happen whether your theory is right or wrong, than your theory is not very useful.

It’s just sampling bias. For example, if you trudge through my Reddit history and find only the posts that sound left-wing and present those, you could probably convince someone I’m a leftist. There’s far, far more evidence than could be presented for this shooter! But it’s not because I’m a leftist, it’s because I have many thousands of posts, and you only need a handful to present for a case.

Similarly, you could find all the horrible contraband I’ve posted on HBD and easily prove I’m a fascist.

None of the underlying evidence changed; just the choice of what to magnify.

  • -11
More comments

"The evidence that thoroughly debunks my goofy personal pet theory is surely coming, but whatever it may be I'm already certain it's fake and a conspiracy."

Yeah okay, sure. Good job. Gottem.

This guy needs to be banned. He offers a stupid theory. He then insults people whilst focusing on minutia. He states views that are basically unfalsifiable. And, he implicitly justifies (though he denies it) murder (who the fuck would say that if Kirk was more “gracious,” the shooter wouldn’t shot unless they were tacitly explaining away the murder?)

More comments

You’re being egregiously rude for reasons that are unclear to me. Perhaps you are hurt because your entirely speculative theory was not well received. You still have avoided all the myriad criticisms repeated by numerous comments and have just retreated deeper and deeper into sneering sarcasm

There is an answer to the question, and the answer is “yes, almost certainly.” The poster didn’t want to say that because it makes them look bad, so they said they don’t know.

The answer that would have impressed me would be “Yes, but the better question is what percentage of the time does someone get cold feet?” and then some Gwern napkin math. I’d be proud and tell you good job.

  • -15

Rationalist napkin math is a terrible form of analysis, but if you think you have the right to expect it from me, why didn't you provide any in support of your argument?

Rationalist napkin math is a terrible form of analysis

Ok, I’m going to have to stop you there. We are not meant for each other. I think it’s better if we go our separate ways and talk to other people. Best of luck.

  • -18

If you think it's a great way of analysis, the best way to argue for it, is to demonstrate it. If you demand that we do it, and rest your case on a fanfic, the impression you're giving is that you don't think it's of much value either.

But even here, the other poster is confusing categories. He is confusing cold feet with a change of mind (he assumes the killer wants an out when I bet most killers don’t change their mind as much as get nervous).

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