site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5054 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And that's because, as of this past weekend, the Attorney General of Virginia is Jay Jones. It was common in the last month of the campaign trail for uncomfortable Democrats to rationalize that he could simply step down as soon as he'd won, but that notion of compromise died rapidly as time passed, people learned to stomach it by familiarity, and common knowledge was created that Democrats collectively had no problem with Jones.

I was curious how one does become AG in Virginia, so that we find ourselves in this unfortunate situation. Appointed by some evil corrupt Democratic governor? Or the coastal elites or Illuminati or Jews? Buying the post? Murdering the previous AG?

It turns out that he simply got 53% of the votes.

Now, if you are arguing that America has a systematic problem with voting for sleazebags whose (public knowledge) past statements should utterly disqualify them in the eyes of the voters, I am likely to agree with you there. I am not even going to argue that Jay Jones does not belong in that set.

His texts were strategically leaked after he had won the primaries but before the general election. But that backfired when Virginians decided that they still preferred the Democrat sleazebag to someone more aligned with Trump.

So for the next four years, if any Republican is accused of a crime in the state of Virginia, Jay Jones will be in charge of prosecuting them. Should Republicans accept the legitimacy of a state AG who explicitly and sincerely advocated that they and their children are scum who it is morally obligatory to exterminate in a campaign of revolutionary terrorism?

I know this is confusing language-wise, but both the Democratic and the Republican party have historically been in favor of this concept called "democracy". This means that the legitimacy of an elected official is decided by vote in accordance with the relevant constitutions. If the good citizens of Virginia decide to elect fucking Hannibal Lecter as their AG, that would make Lecter their legitimate AG. It does not make him fit for office, and you are free to believe that he will be the fox guarding the chickens. You are also free to say so as much and as loud as you want, and campaign for him to be impeached over his campaign against vegetarianism or whatever. Urge people under his command to remember that they should refuse any illegal orders of his, especially when extrajudicial killings of citizens are concerned.

I would also challenge your understanding of the adjective "sincerely". A common defense of Trump is "you can not take what he says literally", even when what he says is a carefully crafted statement for public consumption. Nobody remotely sane is believing that Jones will engage in a campaign of murder against Republicans and their children. Not Republicans in general, not Gilbert in particular either. If he had published an op-ed "How to heal the rift in America by having death squads kill Republicans and their offspring" in the NYT, I would concede that he was serious. There is no indication that he contemplates killing anyone with the same sincerity as Trump contemplating an invasion of a NATO ally. My strong prediction is that his office will investigate any homicides of children, no matter who their parents are. Perhaps he will decline to investigate ambiguous, politically charged shootings where self-defense is a plausible claim, just like Pam Bondi declines to investigate the shooting of Good. But if you believe that a random gas station robber will get off the hook by just pointing out that the clerk they shot was actually a kid of a Republican mother and therefore deserved to die, you have lost all connection to reality.

It turns out that he simply got 53% of the votes.

Yes, you gloss over the most distressing part like that somehow makes it better. That makes it worse. Far, far worse. Virginia Democrats saw a candidate espouse that you should murder you political opponents children to make an example of them, and they went, enthusiastically, "That's our guy!" I live among them. Trust me. They are telling you exactly who they are. They want you (well probably not you, but definitely me) dead. The only thing they can't agree on is the order in which my family should be murdered to cause the most anguish to the survivors in their last moments.

If it were one bad guy, maybe the next guy won't be so bad. Maybe there will be electoral backlash. But when voters go "No, we actually want the guy that wants to murder you", that's civil war territory.

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