site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23419 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He said "gender doesn't exist and god doesn't put people in the bodies of the wrong sex" I wouldn't call that going against trans activism. I'd call that believing that trans people don't exist and anyone claiming so shouldn't be given any special considerations, polite or otherwise.

If I said "god doesn't exist" and want anyone making theological arguments to be denied special considerations for their beliefs, you wouldn't call me "being against christian/jewish/muslim/etc activism"

This is a classic: don't bring up politics at work, end of story. People who do should be fired.

If he had been the one to bring it up that might follow, but it was a reply in a thread about the topic. Gender was brought up by others in an "of course we all agree" fashion, he just replied.

In your example your reply of God Does Not Exist was in reply to a thread about what workplace activities we could do to advance muslim goals then that is very different from saying it in the middle of a budget meeting.

If people who bring up politics at work should be fired then it is the liberals of Google who should be on the block, not him, since they are the ones who brought it up.

Is he being forced to reply? There's this weird behavior some people do where they can't keep their shit to themselves. Some general thread of the topic, some tribal consensus building, and because you disagree, you NEED to respond. Damn the consequences! The TRUTH is the most important thing. Never-mind its truth as you see, it without room for how others do. It's very annoying, self-centered behavior that makes me want to cuff these people like their parents should have.

In your example your reply of God Does Not Exist was in reply to a thread about what workplace activities we could do to advance muslim goals then that is very different from saying it in the middle of a budget meeting.

Are they talking to you? Or are you butting in? There's a bunch of unknowns in this case that make it unclear what the context was. If this was attempting to use funding from his department/group, then he has lee-way to intercede. But if a general google forum for their workplace is having this discussion, then he's engaging in asocial behavior trying to butt in and swing his dick around, being a "Debate Me Bro" at work.

If people who bring up politics at work should be fired then it is the liberals of Google who should be on the block, not him, since they are the ones who brought it up.

Your terms are absolutely acceptable. I want near zero tolerance for this shit. It's annoying unprofessional behavior.

If people who bring up politics at work should be fired then it is the liberals of Google who should be on the block, not him, since they are the ones who brought it up.

"That's not politics, that's common decency" -- leftists on Google's internal forums.

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