site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   29454 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 22, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Argument 5

You forgot to add #6 - that argument from hypocrisy is an age old argument, which considered as one of the weakest ones in any debate, the official name is tu quoque fallacy. I will give some reasons why this argument will not win many people - including in this very same debate where the right is now digging up quotes from AOC or Kamala Harris calling for cancelations and showing how they are hypocrites. It is a weak form of ad-hominem. You are not attacking the argument, you are attacking the person giving the argument. For instance even an active heroin addict can rail against taking heroin. In fact he may have a unique position as an active user to effectively argue against it. Just pointing a finger that he is an addict and thus his argument is invalid may not be the best one.

Here, I can show how you are a hypocrite. Are you against cancelling people from their jobs if let's say they have a past of engaging in pedophilia? Are you actively against public sexual offender registry or against people requiring to offer proof of clean criminal records which exists solely to cancel people from any potential jobs or buying property etc.? If not, then you are a hypocrite and you are in fact for cancel culture. So shut up and delete this post you fucking hypocrite.

I don't consider it one of the "weakest ones" and I often find that people trying to argue against hypocrisy are extremely low credibility, it means they don't care about contradictions in what they advocate to others, which is such a foundational property that I think anyone reasonable would have it -- it's not about some inverted argument from authority.

The central example is obviously something more like people taking a pseudo-neutral stance of a rule while applying it only one way in practice, or politicians saying something in public and doing the opposite privately. It is so useful that you could not discard it and I view it with suspicion when someone attempts to call it weak or dismantle it.

I don't consider it one of the "weakest ones" and I often find that people trying to argue against hypocrisy are extremely low credibility

You do not even get the point, which is that even people arguing for hypocrisy are 100% hypocritical in some of their beliefs. In that sense they argue against their own argument.

The central example is obviously something more like people taking a pseudo-neutral stance of a rule while applying it only one way in practice

So you have never in your life do anything like that ever? If you did, you are a hypocrite and thus you should stop arguing by your own admission. Unless I am talking to the second incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Railing against heroin while taking it isn't a very good example of hypocrisy. A more clearcut example would be criticising others for being morally weak enough to take it, while you claim the moral high ground and secretly take it yourself.

Even then, you can be a heroin addict openly admitting that you take it and that everybody who takes it including you is morally weak and you can be correct. You can fulfill the dictionary definition of a hypocrite to perfection and still be correct, as the validity of your argument is independent on your own person. That is why it is a fallacy.

Hmm. The Cambridge dictionary definition:

"someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere"

Your example does not seem to show the heroin addict is insincere in their belief, but rather that they suffer weakness of the will.

Hmm, Merriam-Webster dictionary definition

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

My example of heroin addict perfectly fits this dictionary definition.

Some definitions include it; some don't. There's a reason I didn't say I wasn't being a hypocrite below. It's definitely a highly-noncentral case, even if included.

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