site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20d ago (text post)   32336 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.

Another consistent view is that Ashley Babbit deserved it because she was protesting for a bad cause (overturning an election) whereas Renee did not because she was protesting for a good cause (stopping the feds from kidnapping us).

It's consistent if you openly acknowledge you are embracing Conflict Theory ("we are Good, so it's Good when our side does it - you are Bad, so it's Bad when your side does it").

Most Conflict Theorists aren't so nakedly open about it. People want to pretend they have principles and their conclusions are based on reason and some form of justice.

How can you respond to this comment without modding it? The other poster is claiming without any evidence that ICE is kidnapping presumably Americans. That’s an extraordinary explosive claim wi the zero evidence.

We are often asked to mod people for "being dishonest."

We aren't mindreaders. We often suspect someone is being disingenuous, but the poster may really believe what he is saying. (You are surely aware that most progressives do consider illegal immigrants "us" so it's not implausible to me that they really believe ICE is "kidnapping people.")

Do I think @LiberalRetvrn is sincere, or a troll trying to push buttons? He's certainly on our radar, but making bad arguments is not something we ban people for. Demanding we mod people for "being dishonest" is asking us to use more personal discretion in judging posts than I think you really want. Lots of regulars are, IMO, at the very least fond of making unsubstantiated and unverified claims very confidently.

"Inflammatory claim with insufficient evidence" is the rule usually cited. Contrary to what many people think, though, this does not mean "A claim that inflamed (pissed off) me and that I don't believe."

But how is “they are kidnapping us” not an inflammatory claim without sufficient evidence?

"Inflammatory" is subjective. We don't apply it every time someone says something that pisses you off. Arguably almost every argument made here is inflammatory to someone, and unsurprisingly, people who don't agree with the argument made typically consider it to have been presented with insufficient evidence.

I already pointed out the answer to your specific case: charitably, @LiberalRetvrn does consider the people ICE is arresting to be "us" and he does consider their actions to be lawless and tantamount to "kidnapping." I am not speaking for @LiberalRetvrn here, but this is definitely a perspective common on the left, and I'm sure you know this. That this make you angry does not make it "inflammatory" such that we're going to mod people who say it. (Nor should you make any assumptions about whether or not I personally agree with the argument.)

As a meta-comment, one of the failures of the Motte is that while in theory, we are here to debate and argue and test ideas, in principal most people just want validation, venting, and affirmation. When they see an argument they don't like- especially from an ideological opponent, especially someone whose tone or style or specific POV really pisses them off - rather than saying "Ah, someone with a challenging perspective to take on!" or "Hmm, a worthy opponent?" they rush for the report button, and then yell at the mods for not shutting the mf up.

Now here's a concrete example: "ICE is killing dozens of people every day!" would be an inflammatory and falsifiable claim that you could legitimately demand some evidence for. "ICE is kidnapping people" - well, you're going to have an argument over what constitutes "kidnapping." And that's okay.

Kidnapping suggests illegal. Where is the illegality? Now you are going to say that lefties can define words to mean other than commonly defined terms.

You mod for much less absurd things.

Kidnapping suggests illegal. Where is the illegality?

That's a fair question. Address it to the person you are arguing with.

Oh, I see. You don't want to argue with him. You just want us to shut him up.

You are failing to articulate a broader principle than "This poster annoys me, make him stop." But sure, if it soothes you to believe it's about protecting lefties, you go right ahead and tell yourself that.

This is particularly amusing given the guff we're taking elsewhere.

You mod for much less absurd things.

I am sure your opinion of what other absurd things I have modded for is equally reasonable and principled.

First, you are being an ass. I didn’t ask you to mod for an opinion I disliked. I’m pointing out the other poster made an inflammatory factual claim that is obviously false but you won’t do shit about it.

Second, you stated it would be reasonable to mod if the other poster claimed ICE was killing a bunch of people. Well, if I made that claim and then said “when I use the word kill, I mean arrest” you would rightfully see that as fucking bullshit.

Here, there is settled definition of the word kidnap. You have google. Read it. It is the unlawful taking of a person. There is zero evidence ICE is routinely kidnapping people. The other poster made a factually absurd claim with zero evidence and your defense of it is “the other poster gets to define commonly used words to mean something opposite to their common usage without saying he or her are doing such a thing.”

That would be deadly to the site. It is principled to argue against it.

Here, there is settled definition of the word kidnap. You have google. Read it. It is the unlawful taking of a person. There is zero evidence ICE is routinely kidnapping people

I know it's not always avoidable, because it only takes one party in an otherwise good-faith argument, but whenever a discussion starts going like this, there's like a 90% chance it's a complete waste of time.

The other poster made a factually absurd claim with zero evidence

I think it's pretty clearly in the territory of a reasonable Russell's conjugation to describe what ICE is doing. However, I think for someone to honestly back up the connotations that the phrasing implies, they are to some extent required to also express a libertarian stance on other forms of policing. You can't really call ICE raids "kidnapping" but then also think it's ridiculous if I call someone a "kidnapping victim" for being arrested for tax evasion or some other non-aggression that the state declares to be a crime.

I don't really believe that the original commenter passes this bar, but by itself I think it's about equally as silly as if this site started banning people for stating that taxation is theft.

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