site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   31550 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.

The anti-ICE protesters shout "Get the fuck out of our neighborhood!" which seems to evince some sense of ingroup territoriality, just one whose boundary is drawn differently.

Well like a lot of these things, it's a matter of who and whom. So for example, suppose the hot issue at the moment were tolerance of homosexuality. This Good person and her partner would have no problem walking hand in hand through an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in New York or a Mormon community in Utah as a method of protest. If asked why they were going into someone else's neighborhood, then they would almost certainly take the position that they are Americans and they have a right to go into any neighborhood they want.

In fact, I think this is one of the fundamental principles of these types of people: "What's ours is ours; what's yours is ours too." Just look at Leftists when they speak about Israel. They are always whining about "Palestinian Land" but in their minds there is absolutely no such thing as "Jewish Land."

One can see here for a real-life example: 500 BLM protestors marching through a private gated community in St. Louis, leading to weapons charges for the McCloskey couple, who were neighborhood residents.

Shortly after the incident, the McCloskeys claimed that they support the Black Lives Matter movement

It's all so tiresome.

One can see here for a real-life example: 500 BLM protestors marching through a private gated community in St. Louis, leading to weapons charges for the McCloskey couple, who were neighborhood residents.

Thanks for pointing this out. In fact, it's worth noting that one of the more popular chants among progressive protestors is "Whose streets? Our streets!"

This Good person and her partner would have no problem walking hand in hand through an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in New York

I wonder? If they didn't get chased out of it (and then accused of anti-Semitism afterwards should they try "we're Americans, we can walk in an American neighbourhood"), they might self-censor because 'no imposing our personal values on others' so long as the others aren't mainstream straight white Christians. More likely they would try it with the Mormons because straight white Christians there.

I wonder? If they didn't get chased out of it (and then accused of anti-Semitism afterwards should they try "we're Americans, we can walk in an American neighbourhood"), they might self-censor because 'no imposing our personal values on others' so long as the others aren't mainstream straight white Christians.

Sadly, progressives have demoted Orthodox Jews to the status of honorary whites.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/nyclu-report-documents-21st-century-jim-crow-east-ramapo-schools-urges-state-action

If asked why they were going into someone else's neighborhood, then they would almost certainly take the position that they are Americans and they have a right to go into any neighborhood they want.

I think more intelligent ones would argue, cogently enough, that the point of a Pride march through a Mormon community is to show solidarity to closeted Mormons suffering from the oppression of their own community - i.e. that they're doing it to make the Mormon neighborhood a better place to live for its own inhabitants.

Now I am going to have to look up "are there Pride parades in Utah?" and yes there are.

I think more intelligent ones would argue, cogently enough, that the point of a Pride march through a Mormon community is to show solidarity to closeted Mormons suffering from the oppression of their own community

Sure, and ICE could argue that there are people in the neighborhood who want them there; that they are serving a larger good by being there, and so on.

Any intrusion into the territory of a person, group, can be justified in some way. Kinda the point of having territory is that the person (or group) who owns the territory gets to decide who can and cannot enter, irrespective of any justification.

Well, hang on, now, now you seem to be saying that neither ICE's presence in Good's neighborhood nor the hypothetical Pride March should be considered legitimate; as opposed to saying that both of them would be legitimate. Which is it?

Well, hang on, now, now you seem to be saying that neither ICE's presence in Good's neighborhood nor the hypothetical Pride March should be considered legitimate; as opposed to saying that both of them would be legitimate. Which is it?

Actually, I wasn't trying to make any statement at all about overall legitimacy; rather I was simply saying for progressives it's pure who/whom.

What do I actually think on the issue? Certainly the "this is OUR neighborhood" argument has no legitimacy at all when it comes to enforcement of national immigration laws. That neighborhood is part of the United States and if immigration laws are to be enforced, it just won't work to have neighborhoods where illegals can hide out at their convenience.

With respect to homosexuality, it's a closer question.

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