site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   26444 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.

DeSantis was the most surprising

DeSantis is not surprising. He's trying to thread the needle between not angering Trump while trying to get the media's approval as the "least bad Republican" for his next run.

Probably a bad move. If he wants to get elected, being the "least bad Republican" just means the Democrats calling themselves "moderates" say fewer mean things about him (or even nice ones, during the primary) and then they all vote for the Democrat anyway. If he wants to get elected he should lean into DeathSantis and try to be the "most bad Republican"; he still won't get the "moderates" but he'll have a better shot at energizing the base.

This commercial made me seriously consider voting for DeSantis; best political ad I have seen since "Casey", also featuring Ron ("Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you" is overrated). But he dropped out before the Florida primary, so it was a moot point.

I don't get what the problem with letting transgender women compete in Miss America pageants is. Isn't that like letting women compete in men's sports?

Because the scoring is arbitrary and the score-keepers are readily politically captured. A transman who wins a sprint either has the time or doesn't. A transwoman who beats wins the Miss America pageant could have impressed judges with interviews, swimsuit, and evening dress... or have had judges feeling they could Prove The Chuds Wrong. Hell, even if she genuinely does win with the judges, it's quite possible or even likely, that none of the things that won the race will appeal to a social conservative audience, even if you could somehow force them to be honest with a magical spell.

((uh, most sports. A transman might have a biological advantage over cis guys in some gunnie-related sports, though the data is controversial.))

Meanwhile, the philosophy that this is just some distraction that doesn't matter runs headfirst into the 'fine, then let me win' problem. It probably does have some strategic value, and I'd argue that social conservatives should actually try to investigate what (though I don't like them on this topic well enough to do their work for them), but social conservatives can tell it does from progressive actions, without having to delve into whether it's the scholarships, ability to claim what's attractive to men at young women, ammo for the 'this is how things really are' arguments in courts and to regulatory agencies, or just a new avenue to claim anti-trans people aren't 'really' straight.

I don't think it matters, but if you want to persuade people who do, you need to at least attempt the basics of understanding what motivates them.

I don't think it matters, but if you want to persuade people who do, you need to at least attempt the basics of understanding what motivates them.

I think that's what my comment was doing.

There's also some less committed Republicans who could be driven to exhaustion by the constant "everything Trump does is unprecedented and threatens the republic if not the entire planet" background messaging of the media. Positionning yourself as the guy that will still be a Republican but won't have the media shriek constantly about is good if you feel that these people outnumber Trump-only (or Trump-approved-only) voters.

the guy that will still be a Republican but won't have the media shriek constantly about

Tell me when you find that unicorn, I'd love to know!

Those people vote for Democrats now.

the guy that will still be a Republican but won't have the media shriek constantly

My experience of more than 50 years of consuming Democratic party-aligned news media makes me mark this as an extraordinary claim.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think that guy exists. But one can position themselves as him until he gets elected and the media shrieks at him constantly anyway.

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