site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   24088 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 have a really hard time with considering shooting a man being restrained, kneeling, in the back regardless of evidence of having a gun or not, to be a good, defensive shoot.

Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?

I expect competence from Agents of the State, and this is not it.

Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?

I think much like a felony murder, an agent of the state acting in such a way that is negligent, and leads to the death of someone should be charged with manslaughter.

Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?

Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?

Are you non-tribal, non-partisan enough to judge the actions of your in-group as they affect the out-group> Do you consistently fall to one side of each scissor event?

Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?

Are you competent enough to speak on any of this, let alone judge my competence?

Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?

Are you anymore competent in engaging in discussion around ideas than you are in waging the cultural war?

Are you non-tribal, non-partisan enough to judge the actions of your in-group as they affect the out-group?

Sure.

Do you consistently fall to one side of each scissor event?

Nope.

Are you competent enough to speak on any of this, let alone judge my competence?

Aye.

Are you anymore competent in engaging in discussion around ideas than you are in waging the cultural war?

Indeed.

Now, that's four answers for you, and so I do believe you still owe four answers in turn. However, I'll settle for the first one you avoided. If you need more time, I'll refrain from any more responses so you don't feel a need to hurry and deflect. Take your time.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

Isn't this where Bayes comes in?

However, I'll settle for the first one you avoided.

I'm not avoiding, you launched in to a low effort attack on me rather than a discussion of my ideas. I can answer yours with the same level of effort you put into answering mine.

Is your difficulty in considering potential factors supposed to invalidate the relevance of factors you did not consider but which may apply to the validity of the shoot?

They were considered.

Are you competent enough in the particulars of Agents of the State to judge competence?

Aye.

Are you any more competent in judging manslaughter than you are in judging competence?

Sure.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

I believe speaking plainly is a rule on this site, stop trying to lead me into the alley, I'm just not interested.

Oh, hey, you seem to have tried to dodge the original question. Again. What a surprise- who could have seen that coming? You even took more time to avoid answer it than it would have taken to answer. I do appreciate the commitment to the 'I'm not avoiding' evasion, though that sort of Marvel-esque irony is a bit dated.

Thankfully though, you did take the bait for brevity and answered the others. Let others make of them what they will, while we can move on to the question you may still try to evade.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

So definitely a bad faith troll, trying to elicit an emotional reaction. I do always fall for it.

You do seem pretty insistent on avoiding a rather foundational question that should do the opposite of stir an emotional response. Speaking clearly, this is likely because you recognize that answer it directly will either make your first attempt to ignore it in favor of passing judgement come off as bad faith, less than competent, or both.

But since I will keep asking the question until you answer, or until you get tired of trying to avoid it while also trying for last word / parting jab...

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

You do seem pretty insistent on avoiding a rather foundational question that should do the opposite of stir an emotional response. Speaking clearly, this is likely because you recognize that answer it directly will either make your first attempt to ignore it in favor of passing judgement come off as bad faith, less than competent, or both.

But thats not actually what you did, rather than discussing my idea you started discussing me. That is the definition of ad-hominem. Claiming you aren't in an attempt to score points with an external audience is precisely what I mean when it comes to "waging the culture war" you aren't here to discuss ideas, you are apparently here to look good. I'm not going to answer your leading question, just because you stand past a pit of spikes and taunt me. If you have an actual argument you'd like to make I am all ears, but this "¡Andale, toro!" like I'm some bull that you get to use for entertainment with the crowd is tiresome. It is the definition of troll behavior.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

This requires you to know ahead of time whether evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, are you able to predict the future? If not then removing evidence is just you being biased towards one outcome. All data is evidence.

You continue to evade a foundational question, this time by trying to smuggle a change to the premise of the question in order to answer the question with a question, and leave with the final jab. So you were predicted on two of the three, so you shall be. Toro indeed.

That said, you have made a mistake in your attempted retort. A question that makes you look bad if you give a particular answer it is not necessarily a leading question. Some answers just reveal flaws the respondent would rather obfuscate. However, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with first principles.

Do you disagree with the principle that if evidence doesn't actually support or deny a conclusion, it should not be used to support or deny a conclusion?

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