site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   17076 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The BBC are establishment progressives. They do largely adhere to the status quo, except on cultural issues where they are invariably well to the left.

That one of their editors appears to be a bit of Zionist apparently had no impact on their fawning coverage of Hamas talking points, as demonstrated in the reply right below yours. It's a similar argument that Davie and Turness are both Tory appointments with conservative leanings; somehow it didn't prevent the BBC from this blunder, or the hundreds of Gaza blunders, or their "LGBTQ desk" somehow getting veto power over any and all trans related articles.

That one of their editors appears to be a bit of Zionist apparently had no impact on their fawning coverage of Hamas talking points,

This isn't actually true at all. People have done the research - the numbers were even included in that article. But if you want another source... https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/israel-palestine-bbc-news-coverage-bias-gaza-war/

We found that “murder”, “murderous”, “mass murder”, “brutal murder” and “merciless murder” were used a total of 52 times by journalists to refer to Israelis’ deaths but never in relation to Palestinian deaths. The same pattern could been seen in relation to “massacre”, “brutal massacre” and “horrific massacre” (35 times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths); “atrocity”, “horrific atrocity” and “appalling atrocity” (22 times for Israeli deaths, once for Palestinian deaths); and “slaughter” (five times for Israeli deaths, not once for Palestinian deaths).

In the current Gaza war, when a former Israeli general was interviewed for BBC Online, he was described as “straight-talking” when he said that innocent civilians would have to be killed when Israel “crushed” its “enemy” and that “we need to be tough”. It is inconceivable that any Palestinian group would be given space to describe the need to kill Israeli civilians – let alone be described as “straight-talking” when doing so.

The main reason people believe there's any equivalency is that zionists tend to be incredibly histrionic and react with screaming meltdowns at the idea that anyone could oppose their genocidal ethnostate. Here we have a media organisation that the evidence shows is objectively biased towards the zionist perspective, and yet zionists still wail and whine that their coverage of "Hamas talking points" is fawning or that they committed hundreds of Gaza blunders when the evidence is clear that the coverage was objectively and explicitly (as confirmed by Raffi Berg) biased in their favor.

"LGBTQ desk" somehow getting veto power over any and all trans related articles.

I'm on the left but I agree this was bad - I don't think that trans issues have been handled well by the left at all. At the same time I don't think that a genuine concern for trans people was behind this coverage, but I'm not really going to fight you on this issue. You're right, it is a problem.

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