site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   24155 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.

Likewise if the country devolves into a dysfunctional narco-state where the government doesn't actually control a large share of its territory.

That isn't 'devolving' it's the current state of Venezuela.

Beat me to it

I considered putting in a disclaimer because I knew some smartass would make a comment like this. Venezuela has severe problems, but it still has a long way to go before it hits rock bottom.

Is it other people being a smartass, or you underestimating how bad the status quo already is?

Venezuela is already in a state comparable to, and in some ways worse, than many of the major geopolitical wars of the last quarter century. The previous leader was headed by a literal Catro fanboy who saw Cuba, and went 'I want my country to be like that,' and then saw that Iraq War insurgency and went 'I want my capital to be like that too, except in peacetime.' And then the next leader doubled down, and added another decade to that.

Don't get me wrong- I am always up for a 'it could get worse' musing. But rock bottom isn't even the bottom there, because you can blow up the rocks and go even deeper. It's an expression that means precious little if you don't peg it to some level of what 'rock bottom' even is. Genocide? Natural as well as man-made famine?

The reason that actual civil wars are considered 'rock bottom' in most cases is because they do think like break basic infrastructure like clean drinking water or medical services (already happened years ago), or see increased civilian casualties (has been the case for approaching decades), or see government forces or proxies extort and target local residents (ayup), or that the government resorts to prison camps or blacksites and disappears dissidents (ayup again), or it ruins the local economy (errr....), or it causes mass migration refugee crisis as people flee (ha...ha...sob), and many other things, several of which have also come to pass.

But these are additive qualities in most contexts, things that wouldn't exist except for the but-for the test. But for a war, Venezuelans would still have clean drinking water. But for an uprising, the government wouldn't back gangs to prey on people. But for the opposition, the economy would be fine.

When these are not additive qualities- when these are the status quo- 'rock bottom' appeals have to put in the work for some distinction that's worth a difference.

While it's literally true that Venezuela is not a narco-state, it's hard to imagine it getting any worse than it already is. The reason it's not a narco-state now has probably more to do with the surrounding economics (oil is more valuable than drugs) than the current government's competence.

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