site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   23862 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you repeatedly antagonize your neighboring superpower, you get what you get.

What the hell are you talking about? It's the USA that has been constantly antagonizing Venezuela and interfering with it. They've fairly successfully attacked the quality life of all Venezuelans by economic war via aggressive sanctions.

This will also no doubt further fracture the Republican base in a major way, as interventionist neocons clash with America-First isolationists.

This implies American "conservatives" and Republicans have ideology. They do not. There is no indication of this, and plenty to the opposite. The Republican base runs on "vibes" and hatred of the other to give a sense of unity and "doing something." And has a massive proclivity towards political personality cults and authoritarianism. They'll be fine - for now. Our glorious tribe leader did something, it was even a success that feels tough, and enemy tribe doesn't like it = it was good libtards. Hell yeah!

  • -22

The Republican base runs on "vibes" and hatred of the other to give a sense of unity and "doing something."

Please,

Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.

Also:

Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat.

Also:

Post about specific groups, not general groups, wherever possible.

Also:

Be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary for your argument.

Remember that this is a discussion site, not (yet another) place on the Internet for performative outrage/consensus building denigration/low effort signalling.

On a geopolitical and moral level though, I have little sympathy for Venezuela, for the same reason I have little sympathy for Ukraine. If you repeatedly antagonize your neighboring superpower, you get what you get.

Somehow I don't think you'd be consistent in your views if China bombed your house because the US antagonized China.

(and Ukraine doesn't neighbour any superpowers)

I don’t know if you’ve read many of my other posts, but I’ve criticized US policies of needlessly antagonizing Russia and China a lot specifically because it increases the likelihood of that happening for no particular gain.

Well username checks out anyway. Your most recent to this post stated:

Trump is a traitor to the USA, and we need to start seriously discussing imprisonment or a bullet to the brain.

But that was almost a year ago, so I suppose "soon" is relative.

The only thing that saves me is my infrequent posting.

And it's also a reference to how I am constantly banned for speaking my mind on Reddit, and how I don't think this place will be any different. It hasn't been. That post was immediately read in bad faith by some mod with an attitude and used as an excuse to freak out, self preen, and ban the scary wrong think. Surprise surprise. And you know, my very first post here was censored. You can't read it to this day, as far as I can tell. So I was banned before I even started, in a way. I wasn't pessimistic enough.

I stand by the name.

  • -24

In my own time here I've seen far more offensive posts than yours, but typically framed as arguments with (what at least passed for) support. You're "boo outgroup"ing here hard. While you can't do that in one direction on Reddit, you're discouraged from doing it in either direction here.

I see your username, and I immediately read your posts in the tone of that peasant in the Holy Grail who is complaining about being oppressed.

Using my elite noticing powers, I notice that flouncers with dramatic names begging the mods to ban them rarely, if ever, have anything interesting to say. Maybe the contents of your mind are simply uninteresting, or worse: boring. Why don't you know, make a good post, instead of preemptively winding up your victim complex?

If every bar you go to is full of assholes, maybe you're the common denominator.

You ever looked into attribution bias? If you consistently perceive the world around you as being against you, the common factor is you, not the world.

Yes. But the thing is I get banned for contradictory things. I'm permabanned on /r/law for defending Donald Trump (I think it was either the Stormy Daniels sham trial debacle or saying he has a legal right to control the border), here I was banned and threatened with a future permaban for speaking ill Donald Trump. I was recently permabanned from /r/fantasy for pushing back against someone that was making things political and responded, keeping things political admittedly, with a post that implied the word fascism is used too liberally and irrationally (it was one of those "somehow punching Nazis is bad now?? posts). Here I'm already getting pushback and "fight me" posts for saying the word fascism at all - and implying fascists might be bad.

So what's the common line? Yes, I am the baddie. But it's not the content of ideas or character. It's having a very angry and abrasive tone of voice in writing, being a contrarian that speaks against the tribe in whatever tribe I'm in. Not liking circlejerks. The other common line is that the modern post-smartphone Internet is incredibly siloed and stuffed to the gills with ninnies that want to destroy people that vaguely disagree with them. And people like me that want to think in confrontational dialectic can't last.

It didn't use to be this way, and I don't think I've changed that much from the days of forums. So yes, I say it's the world, and you, and the children that are the ones that are in the wrong.

here I was banned and threatened with a future permaban for speaking ill Donald Trump

False. You were banned for breaking the rules, more than once. We don't moderate content. You are welcome to speak ill of Donald Trump (or whomever) all you like--certainly others do. You just have to follow the rules when you do it.

It's having a very angry and abrasive tone of voice in writing, being a contrarian that speaks against the tribe in whatever tribe I'm in.

Just about everyone here has a contrarian streak. Nobody cares. You can even be angry. (You can even get away with being a little abrasive, if you can do it artfully and don't target other users!) What you cannot do is make sweeping generalizations, uncharitable assertions, evidence-free rants, etc. You also can't Fedpost (violates the "recruiting for a cause" rule) or submit strictly illegal content for what are hopefully obvious reasons. The rules are what they are, and they will be enforced against you. But they will not be enforced against you for wrongthink, so please don't kid yourself on that score.

It's having a very angry and abrasive tone of voice in writing

Yes.

ninnies that want to destroy people that vaguely disagree with them.

... case in point.

I removed your first post according to mod history. I don't remember why or even if I definitely meant to. I'll undo that now. Sorry it upset you, we do have lots of alts of banned users that persistently join and cause the same problems. Sometimes we are trigger happy.

What mod history? It was a first post.

Nevermind, I'm dumb and can't read.

Edit: Thanks for changing it.

What mod history? It was a first post.

There's a log of all mod actions. He checked it to see what happened with your first post.

Everyone's first posts are censored, it's something due to the code the website is based off of and the mods can't turn it off. They have to manually approve all comments until the user gets over a certain amount of karma. If they could turn it off, they would. They generally approve most posts but sometimes don't notice one is in the queue.

It wasn't a one time thing. Because I'm so used to being snarled at, downvoted, or just banned for posting my honest thoughts I eventually noticed my posts, not just the first one, were being shadowbanned. I think they eventually got manually reviewed and approved but I'd say about 1/3 never made it. Mind you I got started around Oct. 7 blow up, so that changes some things but still. No doubt the mods that were reviewing my anti-Israel posts and allowing the ones that went through through were patting themselves on the back as modern day Voltaires, but, again, not all Israel criticism was deemed a good enough fit.

And everyone has a ghost first post that has never seen the light of day? I don't believe it. And a moderator later said that it was personally nixed, so that further clarifies it wasn't normal.

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