site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   42713 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.

Look, I don't think you're doing something grisly here, unlike my other examples. You clearly just want to reduce my level of mental pain. That's cool and all, but I still think you're missing the point here. When JFK died, did you see a wave of celebratory people throwing parties in the street? There are multiple people in my small town alone who have gotten fired for celebrating this on Facebook under their real name. They're real. They represent real people who live in the world and do things.

Liberalism is holding? That's great. But the gate has just been hit by a massive battering ram, and the battering ram seems to want to smash into it again, so again, it's a little rich that you think this is a point of comfort. I've been seeing that there's a massive loneliness crisis, that young people can't buy houses, and increasingly sign out of life to pick pineapples. What do you think happens when these societal losers see what they can become with a $400 bolt action rifle that you can buy in any ban state?

What do you think happens when these societal losers see what they can become with a $400 bolt action rifle that you can buy in any ban state?

You still need a permit to buy it in New Jersey and I think Illinois.

So what? I live in Illinois. You need a FOID card to buy any gun, sure, but it's easy to get besides the wait time. Otherwise, you could just buy it on the private market in another state. And both this murderer and Luigi Mangione are the types to not have a rap sheet, so a FOID card is easy.

Otherwise, you could just buy it on the private market in another state.

It is federally illegal to buy a firearm in another state if you do not meet the legal requirements in your own state.

I live in NJ; I cannot lawfully purchase a similar rifle anywhere in the country, because NJs firearms owners permit is too hard to get. You need to tell them the name and hospital affiliation of any mental health practitioner you have ever seen, since birth, and you need to have two unrelated adult references swear you're moral enough to buy a gun.

For buying a gun from a federal firearms licensed dealer, right? Just drive to the nearest red state and make a friend. Or, hell, 3D print one yourself. We're talking about murder here, so a federal gun crime is small potatoes, and it's easy to do with so many guns in the country. But this is a pretty narrow point, because that's two states out of fifty.

For buying a gun from a federal firearms licensed dealer, right?

No.

Okay. That's strange to me. How can they enforce the name and hospital affiliation of any mental health practicioner you have ever seen since birth with an additional two unrelated adult references, if it's a private purchase? Who's going to check? Did anyone put any thought into this law?

This does relate to my original post. AOC wants more of these gun laws implemented in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death, even though they don't save anyone and are trivially overcome. When they inevitably don't save anyone, they'll want more gun laws. This is not a new observation, but it is part of the reason why the usual rhetoric of "well he accepted deaths from guns, guess it's ironic he died." He was actually more willing to confront the truth than them, by far, because they still believe that they wouldn't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban every gun and zealously swipe up and destroy every gun they can find over the course of decades to get what they want.

Okay. That's strange to me. How can they enforce the name and hospital affiliation of any mental health practicioner you have ever seen since birth with an additional two unrelated adult references, if it's a private purchase? Who's going to check? Did anyone put any thought into this law?

Those are the requirements to get the license that allows you to purchase firearms. Getting a CCW requires 4 references, which is annoying as fuck when most of my friends are casual libtards who feel uncomfortable doing so.

Wow, I had no idea it was that unconstitutional. I think it's the same way when you're buying a gun privately in Illinois; everyone would want to see your FOID card, even though no one would know if the FOID card was not checked. It seems there is some effectiveness, but I wonder how much, if you're thinking about throwing your own life away on an assassination.

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