site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25652 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 10, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is there any trust left? None of these organizations are due the slightest of deference or respect, they're all ideologically captured shills. The BBC is a state propaganda organ, and the state propaganda organ of the UK is hostile to the US president. This is neither surprising nor that interesting. "News" exists to create opinion, not inform it.

"News" exists to create opinion, not inform it.

As an aside, I learned that about 15 years ago, as I started getting involved in politics. I had joined a new political party. From talking to the public, we had a considerable amount of sympathy, people liked us and our positions and cheered for us, but felt that voting for us was a waste of their vote since our polling numbers were too low to have a chance. I was thinking maybe that was just a hard chicken-or-egg dillema that all new parties have to overcome. But at the same time, the media were hyping the IDEA of a party that didn't exist yet, of a politician that expressed maybe he'd like to start one, adding THEM as an option in polls (while leaving the party I was in, a party that actually existed and had a member in the national assembly as a write-in only option). Of course that made that nonexistant yet party start out with siginificantly higher polling numbers.

At that point it became rather obvious what the issue that was dooming us was; we needed media buy in. Or maybe media hacking (the way Trump knows how to do it). But media was the first step in the cycle of public opinion.

The BBC is a state propaganda organ

It's a propaganda arm of the progressive cultural and social elite in the UK rather than of the state itself. It has such influence on state policy that it's easy to conflate the two, but that's getting cause and effect mixed up.

I would agree except to say that the government has considerable influence on it, but the BBC will fight this influence with every tool if the government is right-wing and accede easily of left-wing (though maybe not as left as Corbyn).

""News" exists to create opinion, not inform it."

Well let's not forget humdrum local news, weather news, and business news. It's not all top level How to Think About News.

Mark Twain had a useful heuristic to give us on the matter:

“If you don’t read the news you’re uninformed. If you read the news you’re misinformed.”

If we're doing quotes, I recall a line of Umberto Eco's in an essay in his Travels in Hyperreality (1986):

"While the mass media seem to act as a thermometer, reporting a rise in temperature, they are actually part of the fuel that keeps the furnace going."

Right side, bottom of the page, 90 or something.

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