site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   26935 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026

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 story went viral A prediction market user made $436k betting on Maduro's downfall.

A gambler made nearly half a million dollars on the capture of Venezuela's president just before it was officially announced, raising questions about whether someone profited from inside knowledge of the US operation.

Wagers on Polymarket, a crypto-powered platform, that Nicolás Maduro would be out of power by the end of January rose in the hours before President Donald Trump announced on Saturday the Venezuelan leader had been seized.

One account, which joined the platform last month and took four positions, all on Venezuela, made more than $436,000 (£322,000) from a $32,537 bet.

In the comments, one thing I have observed is the willingness of people to defend insider trading. Here is the highest-upvoted comment on Hackr News:

"Using insider information is how you are supposed to win these. Otherwise it's just random gambling. This is not the stock market. There are no public reporting rules for the weather, song lyrics, what Kim Kardashian eats tomorrow."

Does this sound insane to anyone else? Why isn't everyone doing this, if they aren't already? Just create a market about things you know in advance, using proxies and crypto mixers to hide your identity and money trail if needed. An Nvidia employee could make a prediction market about an upcoming chip, or an Apple employee about an upcoming iPhone. More specifically, shill accounts would create markets pretending to be an outsider, and the employee and his accomplices would place the correct bets leading up to the deadline. Wash trades by accomplices could be placed to create hype and volume to lure unsuspecting traders.

My comments of course were downvoted. They always are. I could make a comment along the lines of the "Pizza tastes great" and I would be downvoted by every pizza hater on that site and no upvotes by everyone else who enjoys pizza, as is the counterintuitive nature of online voting patterns. Writing good comments is an art in and of itself.

The difference in values between what I imbibed growing up (and yeah, I probably read way too much chivalric literature) and modern morals is such a gulf, I almost don't recognise the people on the other side of the chasm.

Cheating is okay, stealing is okay, things that in the past were considered dishonourable are okay, because honour? pfft, that's a joke! The only thing that matters is if you get caught, and unless you're a fool or stupid, you can wiggle out of that with some excuse or plea.

Story out today about an Irish academic who was both editor of some economics journals and co-author of papers which got published in those journals. Sees no conflict of interest there at all. He did nothing wrong. This was recognised practice in the profession. (I'm tempted to make snarky remarks about economists, but let's not). Other academics have come to his support with "yeah, everyone did/does this":

Prof Lucey, who is a professor of international finance and commodities at Trinity Business School, was editor in chief of the International Review of Financial Analysis for 12 years up to 2024.

He was editor of the International Review of Economics & Finance, another Elsevier journal, from 2019 to last October and was co-editor of Finance Research Letters.

It is understood he has submitted a formal complaint about the retractions to the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) and asked it to assess whether the process followed by Elsevier align with accepted norms for editorial investigations.

In a statement to the Irish Independent, he said: “All the authors dispute the grounds for retraction, as stated by both Elsevier and Cope, the industry oversight body.

“Retractions should only take place where there are concerns in relation to the scientific validity of work. No such concerns have been expressed here.” Asked about his reaction to the controversy, in which international academics have weighed in on both sides, Prof Lucey added: “I have absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about. The science is solid.”

...One of his grounds of appeal to Cope is understood to be that the publisher has been applying policies first introduced in 2025 to academic papers produced as far back as 2017.

“Practices regarding authorship and collaboration that were standard and accepted at the time are being penalised ex post facto,” he said in the email to some co-authors, going on to claim that there had been a “history of professional conflict” between himself and Elsevier over the peer review process in the International Review of Financial Analysis.

...Among the academics who have come to Prof Lucey’s defence on the social media platform LinkedIn is Klaus Grobys, an associate professor of finance at the University of Vaasa in Finland, who posted: “ I think it’s widely understood in academia that many editors follow similar practices. Singling out one person – Brian in this case – as a scapegoat strikes me as unfair.

“Had this been a broader discussion naming several editors, I might have been more inclined to applaud it.”

Nice work if you can get it! Be the guy deciding what papers get published in the journal when it comes to papers co-written by you which are submitted to the journal!

The idea that traditional vices are in many cases actually good for the economy goes back to at least the 18th century, see The Fable of the Bees. Published in 1714, with the subtitle "Private Vices, Publick Benefits", arguing that traditional ideas about honesty and virtue are bad for society and society benefits more from selfish individuals pursuing personal gain, rather than virtuous individuals pursuing the common good. This idea is still pretty prominent in certain types of libertarians and ardent defenders of capitalism, as you can see some of the reactions in this very thread.

As a fellow enjoyer of premodern literature, I am with you however. I find this attitude completely incomprehensible.

I find it pretty comprehensible. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug, especially when cut with philosophies like materialism, individualism, and deconstructionism.

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