site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   22706 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 27, 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.

Prime example of the worst argument in the world (non-central fallacy).

When someone says:

It’s easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it.

They imply murder, not very justified self-defence.

The article is absolutely rife with that kind of manipulative but technically accurate language. Just under the title

legally sanctioned homicides

Technically true, but has the connotation that it's some "The Purge" shit that's going on.

so-called stand-your-ground laws

They are indeed so called, but the phrasing implies that it's pretense.

The laws are written to protect those who tell authorities they feared for their life.

This one is not even technically accurate: the laws are written to protect innocents who defend themselves. That they incentivize less than innocent people to claim they feared for their life is not the reason they were written. Unless the writer can prove otherwise.

They imply murder, not very justified self-defence.

What I expected from the title was actually vehicular manslaughter.

They imply murder, not very justified self-defence.

They're the same picture. (Related: ever wonder why Demolition Man used the phrase 'murderdeathkill?')

There are some reasons you might see it that way, including but not limited to:

  • You think self-defense shouldn't be allowed against [insert your favorite identity] for Historical Injustice(tm) reasons
  • You're a bully, afraid someone's going to have had enough and shoot you some day over some stupid argument [either directly or by proxy], and you want to make sure it's harder for them to do that (also, see
  • You're a strict Social Contract theorist who is incapable of thinking outside your authority's exclusive right to decide who deserves what or think their decisions and conflict-resolution power are strictly superior to its subjects (the "people can't handle the right to self-defense" one falls into this bucket)
  • Axiomatically never believing a claim of legitimate victimhood (this is the "school zero-tolerance, suspend the victim" mentality, which is the distaff counterpart to the "maybe she should have dressed more modestly" line for rape)

Axiomatically never believing a claim of legitimate victimhood (this is the "school zero-tolerance, suspend the victim" mentality, which is the distaff counterpart to the "maybe she should have dressed more modestly" line for rape)

School zero tolerance policies are about lawsuit avoidance, not never believing the victim

Sure it is- if they believed the victim, and were correct in that assessment, then they need not fear a lawsuit.

Clearly, they do not want to do that. And if they aren't empowered to do so by broader society, well, that's already been covered by the preceding points (i.e. "they suspend a certain minority more, they suspend students of parents [who are also bullies] more, they don't want to do the work").

Also, the voting record of their personnel reveals they prefer candidates who don't see their inability/unwillingness to do their jobs as a problem.

Even before zero tolerance, "it takes two to fight" was (and presumably is) the attitude of school principals and such. As a kid I tested that once, and found (to my lack of surprise) that not only does it take actually only take one willing person to fight, but that not fighting back won't prevent you from being suspended.

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