site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   19698 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.

Are you making a positive claim that academic evaluations do not, or ought not, incorporate normative expectations of domain relevancy?

No. I am making the claim I actually made. Since you quoted it, I'll spare you the re-citation.

Welcome to the Motte, by the way. I am flattered you made your first comment of this account to engage with me in particular. I look forward to your long and consistent posting record going forward.

This feels like an untenable position; can you point to another equivalent domain of human interaction where such a positive claim would be supported?

The point I did make on it being unreasonable to punish people for a standard not established? Trivially- as should you.

If you want to make any appeal to normative expectations, a bedrock principle of conflict resolution and the application of rules is an odd one to feign ignorance of.

I can't imagine a high school calculus teacher accepting "because my mom told me so" as an acceptable answer in a proof whether or not the syllabus explicitly stipulated mathematical reasoning as a grading requirement. Most people don't begin asking a stranger on the street for directions with an explicit enumeration of acceptable sources of knowledge yet would be unnerved if informed the source came from a dream.

Possibly you cannot imagine it because these are non-equivalent scenarios deliberately framed to be ridiculous. There is a reason you start with a scenario in which there is an objective correct position to have such that a deviation is a failure, just as there is a reason that neither scenario reflects the format of an open-ended position-agnostic assignment that is grading for structure.

Arguing about the biblical implications of a psychological claim does not provide any evidence of the students learning or growth in the field of psychology and consequently does not satisfy the academic integrity requirements of the university.

The later does not follow from the former, particularly when the former rests on false premises.

By its nature, being able to argue about the biblical implications of a psychological claim already demonstrates that the student has learned enough about the psychological claim to link it to a major social / cultural / societal effect influencing the psychology of billions of people. This, in turn, demonstrates growth in the field of psychology, as someone without such growth would not have been able to identify, apply, and discuss the link.

You may dismiss the link, you may deny the link, but growth in understanding in the field of psychology does not depend on your approval of the link.

Students are obligated to read, understand, and agree to the terms in the handbook every year by the way.

Hence why the graduate grader appealed to other factors to justify their arbitrary decision to ignore the rubric they were supposed to grade by. A standard which they agree to apply every time they agree to take on the course and issue it to their students.

I am as familiar with the practice of searching for another excuse to justify the abuse as you. I am also familiar with its limitations towards the misdeeds of the adjudicator.

No. I am making the claim I actually made.

A more fruitful response would have attempted to delineate some difference between the claim you intended and the claim as it reads. I quoted you directly

It is also exceedingly unreasonable to use a position of authority to formally punish people for something that is not against the rules

The "punishment" you're referring to in this context is the assigned grade, and this line is a quote response to the question

Do you think the final paragraph of the essay is reasonably in accordance with the standards of writing in undergraduate academic psychology?

Making you appear to be responding to the notion that standards exist beyond those explicitly outlined among some set of specifically delineated "rules" (most likely the formal rubric). In other words this is a positive assertion that

Academic evaluations {e.g. grades} do not {...} incorporate normative expectations of domain relevancy {e.g. standards beyond those identified as rules}

If this is not what you intend, you should be more clear.

Possibly you cannot imagine it because these are non-equivalent scenarios deliberately framed to be ridiculous.

You're welcome to make an argument.

By its nature, being able to argue about the biblical implications of a psychological claim already demonstrates that the student has learned enough about the psychological claim to link it to a major social / cultural / societal effect influencing the psychology of billions of people.

This is confused on a few counts. First, comprehending the implications of a conclusion implies no necessary understanding of the arguments which lead to the conclusion. These are two wholly distinct domains of knowledge. Second, the issue in this case is not identifying the existence of "biblical implications of a psychological claim" but rather making a claim about psychology on the basis of biblical premises. Biblical evidence is not itself scientific in nature and consequently does not form a rational basis for scientific claims.

I am also familiar with its limitations towards the misdeeds of the adjudicator.

The student shouldn't have been given a zero my prior is strongly in favor of the position that the grader's decision to award no points rather than whatever the rubrik assigned was politically motivated.

However, if you are rejecting the question

Do you think the final paragraph of the essay is reasonably in accordance with the standards of writing in undergraduate academic psychology?

On the basis that such considerations would constitute an "unreasonable" application of authority to "formally punish people for something that is not against the rules."

Then you're incorrect both in general and in these particulars.

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