site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19440 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Because Modern Conservatism™ by and large doesn’t view this as a big deal. See all the responses to your previous top-level post; it’s just not a problem, and if it is then it doesn’t matter; the Left is ultimately such a horrifying boogeyman to The Right that in the end they’ll still side with anyone if it leads to The Left’s defeat- even if it requires ever-more-uncomfortable rationalizations.

This is actually a big tribalist issue that seems to be happening across both aisles right now and it genuinely scares me. There's a joke that goes

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

The man in the in the joke is unlucky. Despite all the assumed similarities between the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, and the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 ("on the same side"", he stumbled upon a radical 1879er who supports violence on disagreement.

Had a normie non violence supporting Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, or any other religious group member stumbled upon on him, he would still be alive. Despite all the similarities between the two councils, and all the differences between his religions and the other beliefs, the only one that truly matters there is the willingness to use violence.

Look at authoritarian dictatorships and you see something like this. You can be a great and wonderful ally to Xi, or Putin, or Kim Jong Un, you still don't get a pass to disagree with them much. Deng Xiaopeng was a true believer with relatively minor variance from Mao, and he was condemned as the "number two capitalist roader" and purged twice in 1967 and 1976.

Things like the two party system and the idea of "left wing" vs "right wing" leads people to forming tribalist ideas of sides, but there are no sides. There are loose coalitions, with wide disagreements inside them. Communist left wing groups splinter all the time from purity tests and purging, and I'm sure there was plenty of Jews in Germany that approved Hitler's non antisemitic policies yet they died just the same.

The true threat of the Baptist man in the joke isn't the normie atheist, or the normie Hindu, or the normie Buddhist but of "his own side" willing to use violence over disagreement.

  • -13

Any thoughts on which side of the political aisle tends to be prone to ruthlessly enforcing purity politics over relatively small schisms?

Things like the two party system and the idea of "left wing" vs "right wing" leads people to forming tribalist ideas of sides, but there are no sides. There are loose coalitions, with wide disagreements inside them. Communist left wing groups splinter all the time from purity tests and purging, and I'm sure there was plenty of Jews in Germany that approved Hitler's non antisemitic policies yet they died just the same.

Unfortunately, the sides we choose are as real as we make them.

Emphasis on the “we” part. It doesn’t matter if you don’t view yourself as being on a particular side if the other person does.

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