site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   13640 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 29, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

starring a 14 year old playing a 9 year old in full jailbait uniform for basically no reason (clearly, practical for trudging around in the forest and desert heat)[1]. You do kind of forget that after a while, but it presses the "child beauty pageant" button.

I immediately wondered why the swapped out the actress for Holly with one that was, for lack of a better term, "lolita-esque."

The show was pretty good at finding 'real' looking actors for the kids, even at the expense of them being 'ugly'. Derek being a great example. Holly though, hoo boy. Looked like they even gave her perfectly coiffed eyebrows and she kept the pigtails the entire time rather than swapping to a more practical ponytail. I couldn't ignore that it was like watching a de-aged Sidney Sweeney.

This was made worse when she's next to Max, who is a GREAT representation of a tomboy.

for lack of a better term, "lolita-esque"

I think "lolita-esque"- as in "adult/not-child pretends to be a child pretending to be an adult"- fits just fine.

even at the expense of them being 'ugly'

Wait, which kid character was ugly? I mean sure, 11 is a bit of a gimme there, but "weird and butch" was part of the job description for that one.

In S1, outside of 11, you had:

  • The main character, who absolutely had to be a child star (and he does stand out from the rest in this regard);
  • The intentionally very cute/nerdy/sheltered-youngest-child one [that you'd better get attached to or the story falls apart];
  • The chubby perma-child, but still cute (even into S5, which is why he's the most normal-seeming character in the endgame); and
  • The other one, who was also cute- that may or may not have been his primary appeal for the writers but it's good that didn't matter

And then in S2, we got:

  • Tomboy supremacy

And then in S5, we got:

  • Suck my fat one (which was an excellent casting decision; being cute would have detracted from his character, but he's not outright ugly either)
  • I Can't Believe It's Not Loli, as previously discussed

which kid character was ugly?

Dustin is notable for having an actual deformity. Jonathan is contrasted to Steve as the creepy-looking awkward kid. And there's Derek.

Oh, and Barb, who isn't 'ugly' but could fairly be called 'Homely' and was, I'd say, designed to represent a particular archetype.

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