site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29929 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.

Gentlemen of The Motte! We have often been led into discussion about What Is Wrong With Women Today? arising out of topics from directly dealing with the current crisis of male loneliness, female pickiness, and TFR decline to discussion of recent election results, leading to the happy dreams of an economic crash that will finally put women in their proper place:

Women might finally, F-I-N-A-L-L-Y be required to either suffer from economic destitution or make some concessions to men to obtain the support of a good one.

Well, you may be heartened and warmed to know that this is not a new problem, nor are the proposed solutions new either! Back in the November 1904-April 1905 issue of Popular Science Monthly, a learned gentleman (both a BA and an MD, so qualified to speak for both the arts and the sciences) diagnosed the ills of the day due to the pernicious habit of educating women, and shewed forth the path of ruin that society would continue to tread if matters were not taken in hand.

Alas, the gentleman of a bygone day was proven lamentably correct, but you can take solace from knowing you are not alone, and that women have been ever thus. I myself was introduced to this gem via a Tumblr post and I humbly link it here, while extracting some plums for the delectation of the superior sex. Though I am too agéd and raddled with the ill-effects of promoting independent mindedness in the feeble brain of a female via excess of schooling, mayhap it may save some younger woman from the travails of pride and neglecting her womanly destiny! (While the scholarly concern of the paper also touches lightly and briefly on the adverse effects of extending higher education to the common class of men as well, I am assured the audience of The Motte are of a finer fabric and thus well deserving of the benefits of this, and so at no danger of ill-effect):

HIGHER EDUCATION OF WOMEN AND RACE SUICIDE
BY A. LAPTHORN SMITH, B.A., M.D.
MONTREAL.

'You can not have too much of a good thing' they say, and the very highest possible degree of education for women is none too good or too great for them. But to those who look beyond the present and only a little way into the future a great danger is gradually arising, a danger which will go on increasing until it brings about a revolution the signs of which are already beginning to be seen and which will effectually put an end to the evil which is to form the subject of this paper. The author will limit himself principally to a discussion of the harm resulting from too high an education of women, because on that part of the subject he has had exceptional opportunities for observation and for drawing accurate conclusions; but, incidentally, he will take the liberty of questioning the advisability of affording higher education freely to the people at large, of the male, as well as of the female sex.

Brace yourselves for some hard biological facts which only a medical man can speak on with assurance: higher education renders women insane! Yes, due to the strain it puts upon the delicate female brain, the added stresses of maternity leave what reason a woman may possess overturned!

...He will endeavor to show, as he believes to be the case, that the higher education of women is surely extinguishing her race, both directly by its effects on her organization, and, indirectly, by rendering early marriage impossible for the average man.

First of all, is education being carried on at present to such a degree as to at all affect the bodily or physical health of women? This is a very important question, because the duties of wifehood, and still more of motherhood, do not require an extraordinary development of the brain, but they must absolutely have a strong development of the body. Not only does wifehood and motherhood not require an extraordinary development of the brain, but the latter is a decided barrier against the proper performance of these duties. Any family physician could give innumerable cases out of his experience of failures of marriage, directly due to too great a cultivation of the female intellect, which results in the scorning to perform those duties which are cheerfully performed, and even desired, by the uneducated wife. The duties of motherhood are direct rivals of brain work, for they both require for their performance an exclusive and plentiful supply of phosphates. These are obtained from the food in greater or less quantity, but rarely, if ever, in sufficient quantity to supply an active and highly educated intellect, and, at the same time, the wants of the growing child. The latter before birth must extract from its mother's blood all the chemical salts necessary for the formation of its bony skeleton and for other tissues; and in this rivalry between the offspring and the intellect how often has not the family physician seen the brain lose in the struggle. The mother's reason totters and falls, in some cases to such an extent as to require her removal to an insane asylum; while in others, she only regains her reason after the prolonged administration of phosphates, to make up for the loss entailed by the growth of the child. Sometimes, however, it is the child which suffers, and it is born defectively nourished or rickety, and, owing to the poor quality of the mother's milk, it obtains a precarious existence from artificial foods, which at the best are a poor substitute for nature's nourishment. The highly educated woman seems to know that she will make a poor mother, for she marries rarely and late and, when she does, the number of children its very small.

You see? It is more advantageous for women to be lightly educated to a basic level but remain somewhat ignorant and indeed be slightly dumb (but strong as ox) in order to better fulfil their wifely and motherly duties. Science has proven it! And who can gainsay what Science has said?

But read on! The dreadful custom of late marriage has both rendered women incapable of performing their natural functions, and imperilled not alone the health but the souls of men:

...But even supposing that the highly educated woman were able and willing to bear and rear her children like any other woman, she has one drawback from having a fairly large family, and that is the lateness at which she marries, the average being between twenty-six and twenty-seven years. Now, as a woman of that age should marry a man between ten and fifteen years older than herself, for a woman of twenty-seven is as old as a man of forty for the purpose of marriage, both she and her husband are too old to begin the raising of an ordinary sized family. Men and women of that age are old maids and old bachelors. They have been living their own lives during their best years; they have become set in their ways, they must have their own pleasures; in a word, they have become selfish. And, after having had one or at the most two children, the woman objects to having any more, and this is the beginning of the end of marital happiness.

...At a recent meeting of a well-known society of specialists for obstetrics and diseases of women, one of the fellows with the largest practise in the largest city on this continent stated that it was physically impossible for the majority of his patients to have a natural labor, because their power to feel pain was so great, while their muscular power was so little. On these two questions the whole profession is agreed, but I am bound to say that there is a difference of opinion as to the reason. Several of the most distinguished fellows of the above society claim that the generally prevalent breakdown of women is due to their inordinate pursuit of pleasure during the ten years which elapse between their leaving school and their marriage. This includes late hours, turning night into day, insufficient sleep, improper diet, improper clothing and want of exercise. The writer claims that most of the generally admitted poor health of women is due to over education, which first deprives them of sunlight and fresh air for the greater part of their time; second, takes every drop of blood away to the brain from the growing organs of generation; third, develops their nervous system at the expense of all their other systems, muscular, digestive, generative, etc.; fourth, leads them to live an abnormal single life until the age of twenty-six or twenty-seven instead of being married at eighteen, which is the latest that nature meant them to remain single; fifth, raises their requirements so high that they can not marry a young man in good health.

If your daughter refuses to wed straight out of high school (should you even permit her to attend such an institution), then it is her fault and none other if Roistering Ralph, a slip of a youth of thirty, engages in drinking, smoking, gambling, and patronising ladies of the evening. He, poor chap, cannot help himself; it is the duty of young ladies to lead, guide, and control the menfolk.

...We all want to be happy, and to that end we all want to be good ; and, I have already said, we want our children, especially our boys, to be good and happy. But those who know anything about virtue in the male know that the marriage of our young men under twenty-five, to a woman with a sound body about eighteen years of age, is almost, if not the only, means of preserving the virtue of the rising generation of men. People, and even mothers, speak lightly of their daughters at twenty-six or twenty-seven marrying men who have sown their wild oats; but one must reap what he sows and do they realize what an awful misfortune such a harvest has brought to the character of the man, and will almost surely bring to the health of the innocent woman? If one has any doubts on this subject they would soon be set right by the testimony of any physician who has made a specialty of attending men, or who has devoted his practise especially to women.

Over-education makes women picky, fastidious, fussy, and renders them unable to appreciate a good, decent man:

...Another way in which the higher education is making people unhappy is in the cultivation of the powers of analysis and criticism. When the power of analysis is applied to one's own self it is especially unfortunate, for then it becomes introspection, a faculty which is carried so far with some women that their whole life is spent in looking into themselves, caring nothing for the trials or troubles of those about them. This produces an intense form of egotism and selfishness. These people are exceedingly unhappy, very often suffering from what is wrongly called 'nervous prostration,' but which should rather be called ' nervous prosperity.' When the wonderful power of criticizing is applied to others it takes the form of fault-finding. Such a woman must have many victims ; will she make them happy?

Even if these harpies deign to wed, they then impose impossible demands upon their husbands in order to maintain luxurious and idle lifestyles:

...There is another aspect of the question, which is not often discussed, but which has an important bearing upon it. The very essence of cultivation of intellect to its highest point consists in raising the standard of one's requirements. A contented mind makes a man happy. Does a high education make one's mind contented, or does it make it discontented with the present, and ever struggle towards a higher ideal in the future? Is the woman who is versed in art and literature contented with a simple home, or must she be surrounded with objects of art and more or less costly books; and, if so, is she satisfied with her lot when she marries an average man, who is able to provide for her all the necessaries of life, but is not possessed of sufficient wealth to provide those things which would be useless luxuries to a woman of ordinary education, but which are necessities for her? Not only must the highly educated woman have an artistic home, large enough to hold her artistic and literary collections, and roomy enough in which to entertain her artistic friends, but she must have a certain number of expensive and highly trained assistants, to keep these large collections in proper order. In plain language, she must have servants to clean them and move them about without destroying them. Can such a woman, anxious and worried over the care of several thousands or hundreds of objects of art, devote the same care to the bearing and bringing up of her family as the woman whose ordinary education has made her feel no need of possessing such objects, but who, on the contrary, is content with a home and furniture which she herself is oftentimes alone capable of taking care of?

In short, better a content, submissive, stupid woman as wife even if she is inferior to you in social class:

There is no doubt that women can do everything that men can do, and a great deal more; but the knowledge of their ability brings with it an aggressive, self-assertive, independent character, which renders it impossible to love, honor and obey the men of their social circles who are the brothers of their schoolmates, and who in the effort to become rich enough to afford the luxury of a highly educated wife have to begin young at business or in the factory, and for whom it is impossible to ever place themselves on an intellectual equality with the women whom they should marry. These men are, as a rule, refused by the brilliant college graduate, and are either shipwrecked for life and for eternity by remaining single, or are only saved by marrying a woman who is their social inferior, but who, by reason of her contented mind, in the end makes them a much better helpmate than the fault-finding intellectual woman who is looking for an impossible ideal.

Women, do your duty to avert the perils of race suicide! Men, be stalwart as fathers to guide your daughters in the way they should go!

.... It is well known that were it not for the enormous immigration pouring into America day by day and week by week, the population of this continent would have died out ere now. And it is generally admitted that the original American people have almost died out. Even the foreigners who are so quickly assimilated soon learn the practise of race-suicide, although never to the appalling extent of the native-born Americans. As far as my experience goes, the crime is most prevalent among the highly educated classes, while it is almost unknown among those with an ordinary education.

  • -26

As a long time lurker/reader of this place for years, I am accustomed to the regular hand-wringing about the evaporative cooling of the community, as positions become more entrenched and the ideological capture of institutions is displayed time and time again as placards from the culture war. The combative nature of debate here is a boon, not something to be despised. However, the value of this place as an open space for discussion grows less and less if so many people here share similar opinions. Maybe this is one of the many malaises academia caught and proliferated across the rest of the body politic, where over time they just self-selected, intentionally or otherwise, for people who suited them and their worldview.

Because I’ve observed what this place does to people who aren’t in that worldview. They flame out, or become embittered, even while the avowed purpose of this place in arriving at a stronger truth through open discussion and truth-seeking is in no way compromised!

I have stated a couple of times before that this place is not right-wing, it has not ever been. It has its origins in the Grey tribe and is a place for heretics, witches, and people who want to discuss verboten. The fact that this pattern matches to a place where right-wing people can openly discuss things naturally says a lot about the current political leanings of the Cathedral and the dominant modes of thought (“There’s no difference between good and bad things, you imbecile, you fucking moron”) outside this place. However, if the goal is to accommodate a more diverse array of viewpoints, why are reactionaries, “-ists” of every stripe, and salivating over people getting what they deserve good and hard so common here? Upvotes and downvotes are an unfortunate Reddit holdover, but it’s a quick way to see where the motte-hivemind is trending.

Much hay has been made of the motte-and-bailied line “diversity is our strength”, but doesn’t the defense consider viewpoint diversity as a strength? Isn’t this why academia is pilloried today for being majority female and nearly all writing, voting, and having opinions indistinguishable from a neutered LLM ordered to repeat DNC voting points?

I’m sympathetic to these claims, even though I believe quite strongly that if the Cathedral trended the other way, the heretics, witches and verboten-enjoyers would be actual lynch-everyone-with-glasses Communists. I consider it important to know what different sides think, what the normies think, even if it’s become increasingly clear that one side can model their enemies fine (after all, they are surrounded) and the other is tilting at cartoonish caricatures. It is important to have ideologically opposed people who can argue from first principles, who can defend their positions properly, and provide evidence for their claims, if you believe in the free market of open ideas at all. If you don’t, well…

That’s why it’s super frustrating to see posts like yours. Is this the best you can do? Is this rehashed, warmed-over bigot word salad genuinely the best you can do? This isn’t even an argument. It weakens the entire point of having a place to discuss ideas; you’re not interested in discussion, you’re here to be smug and own the autists. Why are you even here? You’re not providing argument for or against Lapthorn-Smith’s position, other than the fact that it’s dated, and he at least had the temerity to attach his name to his work. Have you addressed his points, disputed his argument, provided evidence for and against it? It’s from 1904; have you satisfied the counter-argument with the last hundred and twenty-one years to prove him wrong? His question is right the fuck there: is education being carried on at present to such a degree as to at all affect the bodily or physical health of women? There’s much more recent research on this topic, and there’s probably a conversation worth having there about how modern life ill suits both sexes, and how the human mind and body is not designed to be overworked, overstimulated, overeducated in the way that we are now vs the way we have been operating in societies for centuries.

How am I supposed to decry the lack of viewpoint diversity here when posts like yours are indicative of the quality of discussion I can expect? This isn’t even a strawman, it is a cutout made from paper tissue. There have been several of these; sneering smug self-assured American leftists here to gawk at the deplorables, like they’re on safari or something. Here to get evidence so they can parade the evil of the enemy in front of their peers, “look how much like Voldemort they sound, they’re discussing human bio-diversity again!” It’s made me so cynical of these feeble attempts that my default assumption is trolls or sockpuppets.

I don’t like the fact that there is something approaching a general consensus here: that the time for discussion and dialogue is over and the normies can be led around by the nose to believe and fight for whatever makes them feel good. I’m already frustrated over what seems like a decreased ability to discuss things in common language; not two screens but two voices, and if two why not ten, fifteen, a thousand. So please, for the love of civilization, if you’re not a troll or a sockpuppet, think about what you’re doing. Think about why you’re doing it, and if “owning the chuds”, as if posting something written by someone you think is disgusting is "owning", is a productive use of your time. For your sake, if not anyone else’s.

I have stated a couple of times before that this place is not right-wing, it has not ever been.

I'm coming to this post from the AAQCs thread. This is farcically wrong. This site absolutely tilts right pretty far. That's not to say it's exclusively right-wing, but the following are all true:

  • The Quality Contributions threads are a combination of nonpartisan wonkposts, and right-wingers creatively sneering at the left. There is no equivalent of left-wingers creatively sneering at the right due to a combination of fewer left-wingers, and since any left-leaning effortpost is much less likely to be nominated.
  • Upvotes/downvotes skew rightward. They also skew towards longer/higher quality posts which some people try to point as the only effect, but low-quality left-leaning posts will almost always be heavily downvoted, while there are plenty of low-quality right-leaning posts that will be highly upvoted.
  • Consistently left-leaning posters have much higher moderator scrutiny and can follow all the rules and still get banned for frivolous rules that plenty of right-leaning accounts violate all the time. A great example is Darwin, who was a prolific left-leaning poster. There was plenty of consensus that he was "bad" in some nebulous way, but when I asked repeatedly what was wrong I was only ever given vague runarounds and examples of posts that proved my point like this one, where I disagree with Darwin's political point, but in terms of debate etiquette and rule-following his detractors are massively worse than he ever was.

There was plenty of consensus that he was "bad" in some nebulous way, but when I asked repeatedly what was wrong I was only ever given vague runarounds and examples of posts that proved my point like this one, where I disagree with Darwin's political point, but in terms of debate etiquette and rule-following his detractors are massively worse than he ever was.

Darwin was very good at violating the spirit of the rules as badly as possible while staying at least plausibly within the letter. His notable technique was to write so as to strongly imply an argument while not technically actually endorsing that argument himself, and then abuse the charity of those attempting to engage with the apparent meaning of his statements. To those who saw through this technique and deployed sufficient effort to actually nail the conversation down into something concrete, he retreated to abstractions and then ghosted the conversation. Throughout, he was insufferably smug and responded to most disagreements as though they were a vast, unreasonable imposition on his precious time, and was utterly incapable of meaningful charity, self-reflection, or admitting that he might be wrong.

If you would like specific, detailed examples, this thread, is my best attempt to provide. Notably, it contained a very amusing argument about how great Darwin was, and how comparisons to another poster who was posting terribly at the time in a distinctly Darwin-like manner were totally unfair, a week or two before that poster confirmed that they were a Darwin alt.

Darwin was banned for rulebreaking, but as others have noted, that ban ended. He has at least two known alts here, @guesswho and @cartman, but he doesn't comment much any more, likely because enough people understand his technique that it doesn't really work any more, and I and others will happily expend effort to point out the games he likes to play and the context behind them in sufficient detail that his efforts no longer bear much fruit.

this thread, is my best attempt to provide.

I read through it and I'm still not seeing any good examples. I see two main examples with you claiming they're violating the unwritten rules of debate by making a "flat dismissal" and being "uncharitable" in some nebulous way. Once again, this seems like a case of "you just don't like his arguments". I don't either, as I think they're bad arguments, but I'm really not seeing anything objectionable in terms of debate decorum, at least not something that right wing posters do on a nearly constant basis without any intervention.

I direct your attention to the portion involving the following passage:

This is an entirely reasonable interpretation of Darwin's initial comment, and it seems pretty similar to the interpretation several of the posters went with when formulating replies, which were then ignored. I think what you wrote would have been a much better comment than what he went with, considerably less inflammatory, and somewhat higher in content. Unfortunately, the problem is that this is an argument you are imagining, not the argument Darwin actually is making. He absolutely is not claiming that Bezos or any other businessman has a right to sell whatever they choose. He absolutely is not arguing that private censorship is okay (or wrong), or even agreeing that state censorship is wrong (or okay). The argument you are imagining does not exist in that thread.

That may seem like a strong claim. Fortunately, I can prove it pretty solidly, because in that very thread darwin himself very explicitly said so...

[Insert lengthy quote from the comment under discussion]

...In other words, he doesn't actually endorse anything he wrote in that original comment. Nothing you described above was at all the argument he claims to be making, which is unsurprising since the argument he claims to have been making cannot be straightforwardly derived from what he actually wrote. Everyone in that thread who assumed he was speaking plainly and in good faith wasted their time, as you did just now, because he had zero intention of actually prosecuting the argument he implied he was making. His actual argument was that agreeing with BJ's position necessarily makes you either a socialist or a hypocrite, because the only possible response to private censorship is nationalizing the platforms. That's it. That's the entire content of his original post, according to a detailed explanation by the man himself.

Welcome to arguing with Darwin.

Given that his own explanation of his comment completely contradicts your understanding*, it's worth looking at what he actually said in some detail.

Yes, if you completely ignore the difference between government coercion and private businesses.

Did the original essay ignore the difference between government coercion and private business? No, in fact, because the essay is solely about why "book burning" is a bad thing in the abstract, not about whether people should be prevented from doing it, much less how this prevention might be accomplished. His final conclusion is that "book burning" is a loser strategy anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it. Darwin completely ignores the argument BJ made, preferring to substituting an argument that he himself finds more convinient. He does this, by his own admission, because he was annoyed that BJ was saying something negative about his preferred ideology.

Of course, it wouldn't be very persuasive for him to straightforwardly say "This abstract question is dumb, let's talk about a different concrete issue instead". What he does instead is frame his comment as an accusation: "you completely ignore [x]", rather than as a statement of his own views: "I think [x]". Because he does this in as inflammatory a manner as possible, people are too busy reacting to his snarling tone to notice he's pulled a switcharoo on the actual argument being made. Further, the frame of the discussion is now whether the OP did or did not ignore something important about an issue the OP did not even address; meanwhile, in darwin's mind, he has not even offered an opinion of his own at all, so he has zero reason to respond to those like yourself who "misinterpret" him as having done so.

I would be interested to hear how the above is best summarized as me "not liking his arguments".

10 months later I'm coming back to this because of the meta thread. Sorry I didn't respond at the time.

I don't think these comments from Darwin are really bad at all. Let me explain.

The first comment is the one about censorship. Darwin makes a fairly short comment bringing up the stock argument that there's a big difference between censorship from corporations vs from the government. Your argument that this is a bad comment is that it doesn't go into more detail, and I agree it would be good if it did, but I don't think that should be a requirement by any means. Conservatives on this site respond with short comments bringing up stock arguments all the time. It's mostly fine.

...In other words, he doesn't actually endorse anything he wrote in that original comment.

This is not my read at all. I don't know what the original Medium article said since it's been taken down, but if it didn't address the government vs corporation issue when it comes to censorship then it's woefully incomplete since that's like the first thing any leftist would bring up. Pointing this out even if it's just as a devil's advocate is fine, although if you are doing the devil's advocate thing then you ought to make that reasonably clear. In the other comment downthread where darwin expands on his views, he says his opinion is more nuanced but that he still thinks the government vs corporation bit is critical:

But I also think that the extreme version of this ideology - coercing private entities to host speech and actions they disagree with, making it functionally impossible for people to build private spaces with the people and discourse they prefer, limiting societies ability to condemn and ostracize bad or dangerous ideas - is just another form of tyranny and violent coercion all it's own.

So he's not doing the devil's advocate thing overall.

This is not my read at all. I don't know what the original Medium article said since it's been taken down, but if it didn't address the government vs corporation issue when it comes to censorship then it's woefully incomplete since that's like the first thing any leftist would bring up.

Here's an archive of the original article.

Your argument that this is a bad comment is that it doesn't go into more detail

No, that was not my argument. Nor was my argument that it's bad to play Devil's Advocate. My first inclination was to ask you to try again, but at this point, in a ten-month old thread discussing a some-years-old thread, I don't think it will work. I'll just try to speak as plainly as possible:

Being smug and dismissive is bad. It generates a lot more light than heat, and it actively makes it more difficult for people to have a constructive conversation with you. Darwin was habitually smug and dismissive, to a degree that few other posters have ever matched.

Refusing to speak plainly is bad. That large chunk of analysis of mine, linked above, is not an argument that Darwin "did not provide enough detail", or "did not respond enough", or "shouldn't have played Devil's advocate." No one can ever provide enough detail. No one can always respond to all counter-arguments. Playing Devil's advocate is a perfectly reasonable form of rhetoric. What is not okay, in my view, is throwing out arguments that you have no intention of defending to imply others are stupid for having a discussion you don't like. If you want to argue that a discussion is stupid, you can do that. If you want to argue that the conversation is missing some necessary line of argument, do that. But you ought to actually make an argument you are at least somewhat willing to defend, not just imply it and then sneer at anyone who attempts to engage with it. If you are posting here, you are supposed to expend effort to have a meaningful discussion. I defy you to argue that, at least in the threads I discussed, Darwin did so to an acceptable degree.

This forum runs on a reputation economy. A major axis of reputation is "willingness to recognize and tell the truth." If you make it clear to your opposites that the driving value behind your arguments is "say absolutely anything that advances my tribal interests in the short term regardless of previous statements", you will lose a lot of reputation, and people will stop taking your arguments seriously. The rule here is "discussing the culture war, not waging it", and the one about how this space is not territory to be claimed or fought over; If people conclude that you are not acting in good faith, they are not going to be interested in discussing things with you. The links I provided included long, thoughtful attempts by other users to engage with Darwin. I myself spent years attempting to have a constructive conversation with him, until I finally figured out how his gimmick worked. After that, I just pointed out the gimmick whenever I saw him trying it.

Being smug and dismissive is bad, and refusing to speak plainly is bad, and being fundamentally incapable of sincere discussion is bad, but the combination is notably awful, and that combination was what Darwin offered so frequently that it became both his calling card and his downfall. A useful question I try to ask both myself and others here is, "what sort of response are you looking for with the comment you're making?" Darwin's habitual style of conversation does not have a good answer to that question. If you disagree, I invite you to look over the conversations I offered as evidence, and point out which ones you think I'm being unfair to. If you think those particular conversations are uncharacteristic of his behavior, that's a separate conversation that I encourage you to pursue with others; I'm content, ten months later, with disproving your specific claims about this evidence set.

I've repeatedly and consistently argued that I do not think Darwin should have been banned, as indeed he was and is not. He was very good at staying technically on the right side of the rules, and deforming the rules to cover his behavior would not be good for the forum long-term, in my view. On the other hand, I think he was awful, and I think you and the others defending him are absurd. I do not think you would appreciate being treated the way he routinely treated anyone who attempted to engage with him.

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