site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   23988 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.

This might be the funniest interaction on this forum in years. I knew you're working for the state, but I didn't expect you to flat out participate in the Israeli nuclear kayfabe, and with such poise too. You can't spell out “yes, Israel physically has nuclear weapons already, which is not germane to the logic of my argument”.

Man, what a perverse empire you guys have built. Very shiny surface, but there are a few of these rivets holding everything together, that are impossible to stop thinking about once you notice them.

I retract the above in light of Dean confirming that like any sane person he is reasonably certain Israel has nukes and was just acting cluelessly for no valid reason.

I told you already, argue without the condescension and ad hominems.

And you do realize that someone who is actually in a position to know the real answer to "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" would not be allowed to say so in public forum, right?

If he isn't allowed to say it in a public forum, then he shouldn't be arguing the subject in a public forum, right? Not being able to say the things your argument depends on is toxic to open debate.

If he isn't allowed to say it in a public forum, then he shouldn't be arguing the subject in a public forum, right?

You can make arguments based on things you can't prove. Other people can point out that your argument depends on something unverified.

There's a difference between "can't prove" and "could not possibly change your mind about". There's also a difference between "can't prove" and "could not possibly take a stance on". It's not possible to participate in reasonable debate which depends on something you can't change your mind on or can't take a stance on.

Don't engage if that's how you feel.

Man, this thread got weird.

I've written a mea culpa for 4bpp (in response to Arijan), but I genuinely didn't get that people thought I wasn't saying that Israel had nukes out of some official obligation. I wasn't saying it because at first I didn't think it needed to be said because it was obvious, and afterwards I didn't say because I thought it was a non-sequitur and some bad faith (since cleared up) from 4bpp.

Before today I was fairly sure I'd raised up Israeli nukes enough in the past that there was a broader perception idea that I was trying to deny/not admit Israeli nukes didn't cross my mind.

I have no idea what's going on either. I was thinking about commenting but everyone was talking past each other and alluding to things that I had no context of.

Next time someone tries to call you an Israeli agent, ask them if they want a free pager. Making a joke about it disarms the glowie alarm in our heads.

For a moment I read that as 'isekai agent,' and I was even more confused when you said to offer them a pager instead of a truck ride.

More comments

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