site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   42172 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.

I think I was incredibly gracious, giving you a very low bar to clear to prove political violence isn't rare at 10% of 1% of 1% of leftists.

Even just a fraction of a fraction is considered a small amount, you got a 90% discount. If you still can't manage it, maybe consider you are just wrong.

Suddenly you care about what other people think? What was it you said earlier?"Oh wow, this saddens me so much that a stranger on the internet disagrees." (Words spoken to a stranger on the internet about why he should not disagree with you)

Well that makes two of us. I didn't convince you. Boo hoo. Why do you demand I stand and put my best foot forward when you dismiss the fact that your own arguments are not convincing? You clearly just want to shut down the conversation, which is why you're here shitting up every thread instead of making a new one about the kids you supposedly care about.

You really come off like you care less about dead kids than you do about the opportunity they provide as a distraction. If that weren't the case, you'd bring them up in contexts besides the death of Charlie Kirk.

By contrast, the reason people are talking about Charlie Kirk is because they actually do care about his death. This reflects poorly on you, and only adds fuel to the fire.

Not a single word you have written this week is to your benefit.

I am not going to read anything else you say because I think you are a terrible person, and everything you say makes you look more like that. I am absolutely certain you think Charlie's death is a good thing, and your only concern is that anyone disagrees. From the spamming of conservative slogans I have never said in my life to the dismissal of good faith argumentation, you make yourself impossible to be kind to, and I am normally very patient. If you want to make things worse for yourself, reply anyway, but I won't see it.

You are getting very agitated for someone who "didn't read lol." This post is terrible: antagonistic, full of personal attacks and mind-reading, and the final flounce. Additionally, we're informed you're sending abusive DMs. The only reason I'm not banning you for the latter is that I have only the recipient's word for it. However, if this behavior continues, you will be banned.

I know the site needs some DEI initiatives to protect the endangered left, but it really does feel like you have overlooked stuff like words being put in people's mouths and antagonism just because it's aimed rightwards. This is the result. I won't act like I conducted myself admirably but the temperature had escalated enormously before I even got here. Rest assured I have no intention of saying anything else to him

We are often accused of giving "DEI" passes to leftists. I'm not going to bother arguing that point for the umpteenth time. I'm just going to say that no one is ever getting a pass for sending insulting DMs to people or justifying it with "he started it."

Why do you demand I stand and put my best foot forward when you dismiss the fact that your own arguments are not convincing?

Do you believe your general attitude of insults presents as a person operating in good faith with an open mind to change? All you've done this entire time is to continue the "feels > reals" discourse rather than actually cite any numbers, statistics, or information.

You really come off like you care less about dead kids than you do about the opportunity they provide as a distraction. If that weren't the case, you'd bring them up in contexts besides the death of Charlie Kirk.

By contrast, the reason people are talking about Charlie Kirk is because they actually do care about his death. This reflects poorly on you, and only adds fuel to the fire.

Hmm, does this mean you don't care about kids dying if you haven't made a thread on it? I hope you hold yourself to the standard of "no thread = no care" you hold me to.

  • I am absolutely certain you think Charlie's death is a good thing, and your only concern is that anyone disagrees.

You're absolutely certain how? Because you made it up in your head and therefore it's real?

From the spamming of conservative slogans I have never said in my life

Why would it matter if you said it or not? The truth remains facts don't care about your feelings and facts don't care to be politically correct.

you make yourself impossible to be kind to, and I am normally very patient.

I've met plenty of patient people before and none of them have became angry because of a commonly used slogan. You're an interesting outlier.

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