site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   33390 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

She literally hit him with her car. It's on video. You can just watch it. There's three different angles in the top post. He's folded over on the hood. I never cease to be amazed at the willingness of people to refuse to believe their own eyes.

In none of the videos do I see the officer folder over the hood, or even significantly struck.

Oh dear. You should schedule a trip to the optometrist right away.

Look I don’t know what to say. By now I’ve seen a dozen slow-motion versions of these clips. He was not materially struck.

So are you saying that if you were in the same circumstances, standing on a slippery road while a car accelerates toward you, driven by someone who is hostile toward you, you would have absolutely no fear for your safety? None at all?

I very much doubt this.

My reaction to that fear would be to get out of the way, not to stand my ground and commit homicide.

I mean, that's a fine thing to say from the comfort of your keyboard and the benefit of hindsight

But the fact is that you are legally entitled to respond to an assault with a deadly weapon with lethal force. You can woulda-coulda-shoulda all you want, but if you agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, then this is a legal act of self defense.

I am not allowed to respond to assault with a deadly weapon with lethal force if I can avoid the danger without doing so.

but if you agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, then this is a legal act of self defense.

I don't agree that he had good reason to fear for his life, nor do I think that if had, that it would justify self-defence. If I program a drone to hover above my head and blow me up any time someone walks down the street in front of my house, that doesn't give me the right to sit in front of my house, gunning down anyone who approaches in order to stay alive.

Oh I have no doubt he was afraid, I don’t think he was maliciously trying to manufacture an excuse to kill somebody. I think he was panicked and angry, and instead of taking the reasonable option of making sure he was clear, he immediately went for his gun.

I could speculate further on his personality or mental state, but the point is it was an unreasonable and dangerous escalation.

It’s also worth pointing out the car was coming out of reversing and turning. She wasn’t bearing down head-on to run him over.

This sarcasm does not further the discussion.

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