site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   34121 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I guess I would say it’s an American past time to not ask the obvious questions. No one directly asked Kamala if she was stupid since she did fail the bar or if she ever was paid money for sex. Both of which are very much on her resume. Some things are still out of bounds.

Her book came out before his, so she didn't have anything in it about what questions precisely he was asked, but she did describe what the process for vetting a potential VP is like:

My vetting team was led by Jen O’Malley Dillon, my campaign chief of staff Sheila Nix, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and former White House counsel Dana Remus.

There’s a reason we had top cops and lawyers on the team. It’s a prosecutorial process, as I had learned four years earlier when I sat across a table from the lawyer vetting me. The final stage, after the investigation, was an interrogation that lasted nine hours. The attorney took every aspect of my past, especially the sensitive or difficult moments, and pressed me on them. Not because she didn’t know the answers, but to see how I would handle the pressure. Did I get my back up? Could I pivot? Would my answers pass the smell test? She would periodically ask me if I wanted to take a break. I declined. We didn’t get up from that table until she had fine-tooth-combed my entire life.

So maybe they did ask her awkward questions, but on the other hand - she does come across as someone who does not (whatever she claims) handle pressure of that sort well, plus she had a trump (ha!) card in that "I'm a black woman, you need me more than I need you":

Biden had won the nomination because Congressman Jim Clyburn, leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, had thrown his support behind him. The Black vote in the South Carolina primary—especially Black women’s vote—had thrust him to victory. The pressure was on him to pick a Black woman running mate.

I imagine they did try and ferret out 'are there any embarrassing little time bombs that will blow up if we pick you as VP and then someone does some digging?' but since there doesn't seem to be any Nancy Pelosi-style "my husband and I get rich off investing completely independently of any tips or insider trading information I find out in my day job' and all the stuff about Willie Brown had already been thrashed out when she was getting plum jobs from him and throughout her political career (and very interestingly, there's not one whisper of him or anything about this in her book), I imagine there wasn't anything obvious as a stumbling-block there.

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