site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24663 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 17, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Looks to me like the standard you propose (strong evidence of intent) is not workable as part of some "gentleman's agreement." A partisan from Trump's side would argue that Trump really was busy and he did not intend to do anything wrong. The same partisan could no doubt find strong evidence of bad intent on the part of Hillary Clinton. In the same way that anti-Trump types apparently assign a lot of credence to a witness's report of a " plucking motion that the lawyer takes to mean" whatever.

I think you're right that a partisan would not accept the opposing side's arguments. I mean, my strongest argument was that they found literal rooms full of boxes that seemed to have been actively moved around after spending a year and a half getting the run around. Hell, I didn't even mention the audio recording of him showing classified docs and saying he didn't declassify them because the last time I brought it up The Motte said it was just him trying to impress people by claiming to show them "classified docs."

But then we end up in an impasse anyway. Say you genuinely believe the opposing President committed a massive crime. Are you actually going to sit on your hands and do nothing because the opposing party will call it lawfare? That to me sounds like just another way for democracy to die.

I think you're right that a partisan would not accept the opposing side's arguments. I mean, my strongest argument was that they found literal rooms full of boxes that seemed to have been actively moved around after spending a year and a half getting the run around.

Sure, because if your fellow tribesman had "rooms full of boxes that seemed to have been actively moved around," I am pretty confident you could come up with an explanation which is consistent with non-criminal intent.

But then we end up in an impasse anyway. Say you genuinely believe the opposing President committed a massive crime. Are you actually going to sit on your hands and do nothing because the opposing party will call it lawfare?

If we are talking about former presidents, I've already answered that question. I think they should not be prosecuted unless there is a strong bi-partisan consensus in favor of doing so. Yes, this means that some presidents will get away with wrongdoing. But I think the alternative is worse.

For sitting presidents, I would go with the Constitutional impeachment and removal procedure which, as a practical matter, also requires (some degree of) bipartisan consensus.

I am pretty confident you could come up with an explanation which is consistent with non-criminal intent.

There's a reason why criminal prosecutions use the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt." One can always create an explanation how the murder weapon ended up in their possession if they're motivated enough. The stories just end up more and more absurd.

I think they should not be prosecuted unless there is a strong bi-partisan consensus in favor of doing so. Yes, this means that some presidents will get away with wrongdoing. But I think the alternative is worse.

I don't. I don't entirely trust my own party to convict one of their own, and I don't trust the opposing at all. And I think the feeling is mutual. Hell, McConnell hates Trump's guts and reportedly wanted to impeach Trump over J6, but argued that the courts were the right venue since he was leaving office. Why? Because reportedly he thought he could have his cake and eat it too by getting Democrats to punish him and say he had nothing to do with it.

I'd rather live in a world where politicians fear the consequences of their actions than one they don't, even if that power is sometimes misused.

There's a reason why criminal prosecutions use the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt." One can always create an explanation how the murder weapon ended up in their possession if they're motivated enough. The stories just end up more and more absurd.

Sure, and this is an area where partisans from each side will think that the other sides' explanations are absurd while their own are totally reasonable. I haven't studied the Trump documents case carefully, but it looks pretty easy to me to come up with a non-absurd, exculpatory explanation for "rooms full of boxes that seemed to have been actively moved around"

I don't entirely trust my own party to convict one of their own, and I don't trust the opposing at all.

The bigger concern (for me) is not that each party will defend their own, but rather that each party will falsely convict leadership from the other side. If there is a cycle of attacks and counter-attacks, we could easily be in a situation where one side decides the safe thing to do is to stay in office rather than face near-certain imprisonment, or adversaries that refuse to leave when it's their turn. At a minimum, when prosecuting authorities abuse their powers a la Letitia James, it undermines the legitimacy of the entire system.

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