site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   9566 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 1, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why not?

1). I now eat bottom-feeding fish (sardines, anchovies, tilapia). This is too far to call myself vegan anymore. 2). I no longer believe that veganism is nutritionally beneficial due to big mental health changes from eating fish. I still think largely plant-based is the way to go however. 3). I no longer believe in the purity culture associated with veganism. The way forward for animal rights is by a large number of people making small changes to their diets, not through a couple million extremists trying to argue people into diets they will not comply with.

Why did you decide to start eating those fish?

A couple reasons. A blogger I used to follow (rintrah) who used to be vegan found out he was extremely deficient in Omega-3s and this had been negatively impacting his mood and behavior. I noticed similar symptoms in myself. Also the canned fish were right next to the oysters in the supermarket and I found myself craving sardines every time I bought oysters.

FWIW, you can get omega 3s from algae oil as well (which is what I do). I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that you ended up eating fish after the interminable debates about animal rights in the pages of this very forum.

I still believe in animal rights, I just no longer think veganism is the way to obtain them. I don't eat eggs or dairy still and never plan to (unless I can own a chicken or five), or eat terrestrial meat or predator fish. Sardines and anchovies have such a limited capacity to suffer, and are likely eaten by predators in the wild anyway, so what does me refusing to eat a couple cans a week actually do for those fish (nothing). Of course if I was eating only fish, or fish that ate other fish (Tuna, Salmon, etc.) I think my calculation would be different, and with terrestrial animals factory farming is clearly evil, and I personally can't stomach hunting, so those are still off the table. That said the extremist vegan position was not sustainable for me. What can I say, you guys were right about stuff.

Note that whole most anchovies and sardines are wild caught, tilapia is mostly farmed and has the usual factory farming problems (and I'd expect, although I haven't checked, that the supply of wild tilapia is inelastic and increased demand for tilapia results in more farmed tilapia).

What can I say, you guys were right about stuff.

Don't look at me, I'm a vegetarian.

I haven’t actually eaten tilapia yet, so this is good to know. I will pass on them then.

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