site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   21894 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.

in the newer series they've reintroduced homosexuality

What do you consider new Trek?

The Outcast with an "ambiguous" kiss, Rejoined with a "symbiote confusion" lesbian kiss, and The Emperor's New Cloak with a "dark mirror universe" lesbian kiss are all prime time line. More than, about, and just less than 30 years ago respectively at this point.

I haven't seen, and do not consider to be head cannon, anything after Voyager. I suppose the more recent series have explicit homosexual characters, where it's a recurring part of their character rather than incidental to an episode theme?

In TNG era they were relatively slow with their introduction, with only moderate controversy following each showing. It probably doesn't hurt that Terry Farrell as Jadzia Dax is pretty easy on the eyes.

There is a difference between the occasional queer-coded alien and just outright portraying homosexuality as if it were normal. Not a huge difference (it's pretty clear the TNG actors wanted to push the gay agenda and had to be reined in by the producers), but still a difference. It's the next step in promoting deviancy.

I'd be pretty comfortable letting kids watch TOS-era Star Trek, somewhat comfortable with letting them watch TNG-era Trek, and very uncomfortable letting them watch NuTrek.

Enterprise tried to be The Smexy and just ended up embarrassing everyone.

There was also that terrible episode with Riker and the non-binary alien, which was supposed to be an After-School Lesson about gayness and tolerance, but which could also be applied to transness if one wanted.

It was done so badly, though. Riker of all people?

The better one was with Dr. Crusher and the Trill character where Crusher is in a relationship with a male Trill, he dies, the symbiont has to be placed in a new host, and that one turns out to be female. The symbiont/new host is willing to keep the relationship going, but Crusher eventually turns it down.

So far as I remember, the reasoning behind all the gay relationships being lesbian is because they could get lesbian kisses past the censors, but no way (at the time) would two guys in any kind of explicit relationship be acceptable.

I suppose the more recent series have explicit homosexual characters, where it's a recurring part of their character rather than incidental to an episode theme?

Oh, God. Disco Trek. There was a gay couple there, which in itself wasn't the worst thing. The worst thing is that one of the couple was the crazy mushroom-obsessed engineer, and once they introduced the spore drive (don't ask) I couldn't watch any of this show for the amount of wincing I was doing.

Mind you, if we are talking about Trek and homosexuality, this is the fandom that invented (or at least popularised) slash 😁

At the end of season 1 of Picard they have 7 of 9 getting romantic with that alcoholic woman. For example.

Though you draw the line at Voyager, so that's that.

Oh, I didn't go next, nigh or near any Trek once Disco hit the screens. I stayed well away from Picard (once bitten, twice shy) and by all accounts that was the best decision, though even there apparently they had to go back to classic Trek roots for the ending?

Snakeroot addict ex-officer Raffi livin' in poverty in the desert because the system and The Man done her dirty and down - ugh. Yeah, drop that anvil on our heads several times so we get the point about WOMEN, MINORITIES, SYSTEMIC RACISM, WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE, why don't you?

That's not Trek, not TOS Trek and if it's gone downhill to that degree by Picard's time then we really are in the Reboot timeline and not Prime.

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