site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6537 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.

effortposting on x

I’ll believe it when I see it. Wait, no. We have rules against nutpicking, so I can’t exactly ask you to dig up an example.

Xitter is possibly the worst medium for estimating public sentiment. Even wild support might be real and representative, or it might be astroturf. Something as relatively subtle as “trust the experts” is only going to be harder to measure. How would one know that the people bitching about Musk are the same ones who have suddenly discovered a libertarian streak?

they’ve effectively driven investment out

they’re still buying endless amounts of Russian oil

importing their safetyism

Who? I think you’ll find that the subjects in each of these sentences are actually different people with different incentives. For example, did you know that neither Scotland nor the UK are actually in the EU?

For example, did you know that neither Scotland nor the UK are actually in the EU?

It's baffling why people on this site try to use UK as example of Europe anything when it comes to legislation given the entire legal system has very different traditions.

It’s more complicated than that. Partly because of the intellectual mixing on both sides, partly because successive UK governments have been importing European legal concepts and theory since the ‘90s.

See e.g. the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law.

Americans have a tendency to be provincial at the best of times, but drawing a meaningful distinction on topics like speech and social media? And there are times the UK is still beholden to various agreements like the ECHR- it's not like the UK is radically disconnected from the EU, especially to an outsider, regardless of their "traditions."

What's baffling about it? Most European elites are on board for the same program. Particularly when it comes to free speech, they definitely do not see the UK as an aberration.

Who? I think you’ll find that the subjects in each of these sentences are actually different people with different incentives.

Every institution has different decision-makers in it, with various incentives, it's still completely normal to talk about the decision made by the institution as a whole.

For example, did you know that neither Scotland nor the UK are actually in the EU?

And? The EU is still importing Russian oil, pushing safetyism, and driving out investment. The only axis where they're not-quite-so-bad as the UK is freedom of speech, and it's probably just a question of waiting a few years. And the fine in question is actually being levied by the EU anyway.

That’s why it’s foolish to present UK policy in a screed against the EU.

I agree that institutions may be judged by their works. I don’t believe the OP is talking about a coherent institution. The consumers of Russian gas are probably not steretypical Brussels bureaucrats; the safetyists in government are not upset about fining Twitter; the people who are upset are largely separate from the Musk haters.

That’s why it’s foolish to present UK policy in a screed against the EU.

But the fine in question is EU policy? The bit about Scotland and Starmer was an aside at most?

The consumers of Russian gas are probably not steretypical Brussels bureaucrats

Did he say they're literally tanking their cars at Lukoil gas stations? The point is that they made the decisions that resulted in the EU buying lots of Russian gas/oil (part of why that chart you linked doesn't give the full story is that it's laundered through India, and other countries). This might be a necessity at the moment, but it's entirely a self-inflicted wound.

the safetyists in government are not upset about fining Twitter; the people who are upset are largely separate from the Musk haters.

Yes, the safetyists aren't upset at the fines, the safetyists want to fine Musk. That's the criticism.

For example, did you know that neither Scotland nor the UK are actually in the EU?

If anything the UK is considerably worse on speech than the EU, though yes in ways distinct from OP's conversation-starter with the EU-levied fine. The UK is still under the ECHR and probably another half-dozen or so overlapping agreements besides.

Quite. That’s why it’s a bad example of EU failures. Guilt by non-association.

Minus the association (eg ECHR)

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