site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6308 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 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.

A man who was convicted and fined for setting a Koran on fire, while the man who attacked him with a knife while he was doing so only received a suspended sentence (the Koran-burning man's conviction was overturned on appeal).

Okay here's where I boiled over into rage.

Glad some of these are being overturned on appeal, I guess? Still, yeah something's fucked in the UK.

Glad some of these are being overturned on appeal, I guess?

Yeah, though these reaching appeal is still 4 steps too far. They shouldn't have been 1. convicted, 2. charged, 3. investigated, 4. reported to the police.

I could see how maybe the police are idiots and leaving it up to them to try to interpret speech laws is a disaster. But the fact that convictions happen at all is batshit.

When are we going to start seeing this in British crime dramas? There's got to be a plot somewhere, in everything from Slow Horses to Down Cemetery Road to Law & Order: UK, where we see someone arrested for tweets as if the criminal drama it depicts is considered legitimate, and the audience on board.

A woman visited for a "non-crime hate incident" over an image of two police standing next to two men holding a flag of a major Pakistani political party, captioned "How Dare They"

An American in England told by police to apologize for an unspecified Facebook post

English blogger arrested for "Fuck Hamas" tweet

There's tons of these, to the point that the claim "whenever I look into it the people are being so offensive to the point of derangement or they're co-mingled with violent threats or slander." is just gaslighting.

There's tons of these, to the point that the claim "whenever I look into it the people are being so offensive to the point of derangement or they're co-mingled with violent threats or slander." is just gaslighting.

It was a genuine question. Not everyone has the time to exhaustively get to the bottom of every culture war claim.

This entire year for example I've seen reported /outrageous thing Trump did that violates democracy/ and then I spend an hour checking into it and find oh actually the thing he did was totally legal and I'm just so tired of this shit and now treat every claim as epistemically flimsy by default.

It was a genuine question. Not everyone has the time to exhaustively get to the bottom of every culture war claim.

Didn't you say that you actually looked into several of them, specifically related to the UK and free speech?

Yes. Just because I clicked on three random ones on X to look into doesn't mean I was able to exhaustively review the culture war claim "free speech is under attack in the UK".

The handful I randomly clicked on, the perpetrator seemed like he crossed multiple lines and the UK wasn't clearly crushing political speech.

Since it's being mentioned here, and because I trust TheMotte more than X, I thought I'd ask for the worst examples (and y'all delivered, thanks!)

English blogger arrested for "Fuck Hamas" tweet

All the more bizarre given that they were seriously considering prosecuting the hip-hop band Kneecap for yelling "Up Hamas" during one of their gigs.

I understand the logic that it's illegal to offer support to a proscribed terrorist organisation, even if I don't agree. But it's also illegal to criticise Hamas? Are you just supposed to pretend they don't exist, or something?

There’s the freedom to remain silent on Hamas.

What also hasn’t been ruled out is the freedom to make neutral statements about Hamas: “Hamas is one of the organizations of all time!”

Checkmate, smug freezepeach Americans.

A man who was convicted and fined for setting a Koran on fire, while the man who attacked him with a knife while he was doing so only received a suspended sentence

A German girl was jailed for ...defaming (cyberbulling?) a gang rapist whose sentence was entirely suspended. Similarly, in Oragen a stabber was acquitted because the victim said a racial slur.

An Old Town stabbing case ended in defeat for Multnomah County prosecutors once jurors learned the wounded man had been videoed uttering a racist slur in the struggle’s aftermath.

So the jury accepted that saying a slur can justifiably provoke aggression backwards in time? Incredible.

No. The defense's theory is that the wounded man was the aggressor; yelling the slurs afterwards was part of the evidence.

Transit cameras showed Edwards, a fixed-blade knife clasped at his side, approaching Howard from behind as he sat on a bench. The video has no sound, but Howard springs up and pushes Edwards as soon as he sees him. The duo scuffle against a wall for a brief moment, ending with Edwards stabbing Howard in the shoulder.

Edwards is the defendant, Howard is the man who was stabbed.

Note this wasn't "violent homeless guy attacking ordinary commuter", this was "two violent homeless guys get into a fight". So I can see there might be reasonable doubt, although based on the still in the article (I haven't seen the video) I think Edwards should have been convicted.

Similarly, in Oragen a stabber was acquitted because the victim said a racial slur.

Obviously this is outrageous, but I do think it's important to put jury nullification and infringements on free speech in different categories. It's not like the victim himself was prosecuted for saying a racial slur.

It's not like the victim himself was prosecuted for saying a racial slur.

In what way is "you can be justifiably stabbed for saying that" not an infringement of free speech? The only thing I can think of is that it might not be covered by the Second First Amendment of the US.

EDIT: off-by-one error

I hate to fall back on the "they're a private company, they can do what they want" argument, but there is an important distinction between the government arresting and prosecuting you because of something you said vs. a jury of your peers collectively deciding that something you said was so appalling that it retroactively exculpates the person who assaulted you.

The former is indicative of government overreach. The latter is indicative of ethical myopia and skewed priorities among political progressives. Both grave issues, but distinct ones. It's yet more evidence that Western progressives no longer see themselves as upholding the spirit of the First Amendment (even if they will grudgingly uphold it to the letter) — but then, we already knew that, they haven't even been pretending otherwise for a long time.

there is an important distinction between the government arresting and prosecuting you because of something you said vs. a jury of your peers collectively deciding that something you said was so appalling that it retroactively exculpates the person who assaulted you

No. There is not.

The entire Liberal political formula is based on this particular fiction (amongst others) but there is actually no difference at all. It's the same people, doing the same thing, with the same outcomes. What they call themselves is a trick.

And indeed Liberals know this because the main entity from which they sought to free themselves was not the state, but the Catholic Church. A more canonical "jury of your peers" you will not find in history.

That progressives have done away with any sort of true belief in the ideas of John Stuart Mill is a foregone conclusion at this point. They are Rawlsians first and Marxists second.

That progressives have done away with any sort of true belief in the ideas of John Stuart Mill is a foregone conclusion at this point.

I agree with you. But I will reiterate that there is a distinction between the government throwing you in jail because of something you said, and a jury of your peers electing not to convict someone for assaulting you because of something you said.

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