site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25734 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On December 5th, three weeks after the government shutdown ended:

District Judge Telephone Conference set for 12/16/2025 2:00 PM before Judge Robert R Summerhays. Call-in instructions will be sent to counsel via electronic mail prior to the conference. Issued by Judge Robert R Summerhays on 12/5/2025. (crt,Taylor, L) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

But, hey, Broussard's still only 20, maybe the court will manage to find its ass with both hands and an atlas before literally no one can benefit from the final judgement... if the court's actually making a decision. Anyone want to bet whether a final judgement comes out before Christmas?

Answer: no.

MINUTES for proceedings held before Judge Robert R Summerhays: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 12/16/2025. A discussion was held regarding the language of a final judgment. The parties are to submit a new proposed judgment (or separate proposed judgments if they cannot agree as to the wording) in conformity with today's discussion on or before January 23, 2026. If necessary, the parties may submit supplemental briefs along with the proposed judgment(s). (crt,Craig, C)

But hey, if it doesn't take him more than four days to read two short papers, Summerhays may manage to actually bring a higher court's mandate to final judgement just under a year!

Not likely, at this point, though.

January 27th. It turns out a judge can read and write copy someone's homework without needing a month, sometimes.

The Court therefore enjoins Defendants the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its Director, and the Attorney General of the United States, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert with them and who have actual notice of this Judgment from enforcing within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), the provisions referenced in paragraph 2 against the Plaintiffs to this action or anyone who is a member of one or more of the Plaintiffs as of the date of entry of this judgment.

This doesn't require any organization hand over their membership lists for a federal government group that hates them, but more critically, it also applies to all of the plaintiffs, not just the specific combination of buyers and sellers that the original version did that made it completely pointless. Now, if/when a Democratic administration wants to say fuck it and bring these enforcements again, there will be genuine risk that the seller is covered by an actual injunction. And it didn't even take a universal injunction to do it.

Just three days short of a year.

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