site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   21002 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 20, 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.

I would respect the King for doing this, though as a general principle I think you need to wait long enough for them to be a reasonably known quantity. Certainly not younger than maybe 35. If the throne had been passed to Prince Harry ten years ago, you could have had the entire monarchy being led around by the nose to please a Californian socialite with a grudge.

Would it even be legally possible for Charles to abdicate without legal changes in each of the countries that claims him as head of state? I remember reading that the abdication of Edward required Parliament to write it into law and that law to become law in Australia, Canada, etc. Even given Charles's shaky popularity and Williams's solid popularity, I can't see that being an easy process especially with how independent all the various countries have become legally.

British monarchs have definitely abdicated before, even in the twentieth century.

Only once, since the days when they were "abdicating" under force of arms.

The Commonwealth doesn’t have any legal say on the matter AFAIK. There’s always the issue of whether they would accept William or demand that another country’s leader gets to be head of the Commonwealth, but that’s a separate matter.

My impression is that Charles is generally quite well-liked, at least in Africa, since he cares a lot about commonwealth and he’s quite internationalist. William is probably something of an unknown quantity.

The Commonwealth doesn't get legal say, but the Commonwealth realms absolutely do.

Currently, Charles is King of the United Kingdom, King of Canada, King of Australia, King of Barbados, et cetera. Each of those offices is legally a separate office, governed by law in each of those separate countries, so any abdication would require a statute law passed in each of those countries. (There're several like Papua New Guinea where it wouldn't, but several more where it would.) Similarly, any change to the royal succession would require a law in each of those countries.

That's rather difficult, so I don't expect it'll happen unless it's very much needed.

I see, thank you for explaining.

If the throne had been passed to Prince Harry ten years ago, you could have had the entire monarchy being led around by the nose to please a Californian socialite with a grudge.

I think much more likely would be a second Edward VIII situation. Maybe marrying a divorcée is not such a big scandal today, but Meghan would be totally unacceptable as queen consort. If, in this scenario, William is the younger brother and married to Kate, he would be seen as more suitable and pressure would be put on Harry to either give up Meghan or abdicate.

Also possible.

Prince Harry the heir is different man that Prince Harry the spare. He never married Meghan Markle, he married a black American divorcee specifically to avoid being compared to his brother.

William, by contrast, is certainly ready to be king. He's had 20 years of adulthood to prepare! And it would be great for the UK! The last time they had a monarch that young was 1968! Shake the cobwebs off and dance!

Sure, I would happily cheer for King William V!

Prince Harry the heir I wonder about. I think his constitution is just a bit tricky innately - I kind of assume that somebody who lets themselves be led around like that has a sort-of innate weakness of spirit that will manifest in one way or another. Maybe he would have been a slave to popularity, or in thrall to certain courtiers, or who knows, but I don't think he would have been a good king even if he hadn't been the spare.

It's just hard to separate the role from the psychology of the man where the difference is so stark. Decades ago Harry was known for his impulsiveness, his wildness, for his refusal to be led around by anyone.

But this is a philosophy of personality question. I don't think personalities exist absent context. The starting quarterback and the backup quarterback on the high school football team have different personalities, but the backup is only the backup because of the existence of the starter.

I mean, maybe his impulsiveness and refusal to be left around is why... well I doubt queen Elizabeth wanted him to marry Meghan Markle.

My low stakes conspiracy theory (my wife and my mother are both big royal family watchers) is that he married Meghan Markle specifically to quiet people who liked him more than William, as after that there was no way he could be king.

Either way, he needs to get his ass in gear and become Grand Duke of Kiev.

Context has some effect, but I’ve always been very struck by the (Greek?) phrase: Men travel to escape from themselves, but it does not work. For wherever you go, there you are.

In my experience, I would say that one’s own personality is somewhat more malleable than one realises and also far, far less.

Edit: the specific phrasing is more recent, but I’m sure I read something to that effect in Seneca or some other classical source.

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