site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   31674 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 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.

Interestingly, this post has received 3 AAQC nominations. (I'm frankly surprised there have been no "boo outgroup" or "antagonistic" reports-not that I think it was boo outgroup or antagonistic, just that a post going against the popular grain here usually gets those with the speed of a hammer tapping the femoral nerve.) However, because it is in the mod queue, it's also in the volunteer mod queue (which does not reveal to the volunteer jannies whether it's in the queue for AAQCs or negative reports or both).

It's currently sitting at a "Bad" rating--meaning most of the volunteers going through the queue marked it as "Deserves a warning or ban."

Fascinating.

Pleasantly surprised by the upvote count. I suspect that the people going into the volunteer mod queue are selected for some quality that might not merit the volunteer mod queue.

Well, the volunteer mod score has now tipped upwards into not-bad, and it's sitting at 8 AAQCs and @Jiro's "antagonistic."

How much of that is people going to look for it there now that you've mentioned it, though?

It's always been a problem here that things get voted up if they are long and grammatically correct. Not enough people notice the subtle signs of problems to vote those posts down. It's even better if you include buzzwords like "steelman" (unless you're a completely new poster, in which case mottizens will notice that you're using terms you shouldn't be familiar with). Of course, posters respond to this incentive and create better trolls.

It's possible to look at the post and say "wait a minute, people have made arguments here that he's shown no sign that he's even read, despite claiming that he knows what 'the forum's' case is." Or to notice claims being made without evidence (really, you can just assume that agents are poorly trained?) And if you wait a little while it's also possible to notice that he made the post, but he doesn't seem to be interested in engaging with the people responding to it. (That is a dead giveaway.) But not enough voters will do that.

I engaged with one particularly important reply, and plan for more engagement tonight and tomorrow.

Actually, Jiro, you are a perfect example of terrible voting and reporting patterns. There are few long-timers on the Motte with a worse history of bad faith posting, bad faith reporting, and generally taking a reflexive conflict theory approach to any post. "If it supports my tribe, it is good. If it advocates for any member of my outgroup, it is bad and should not exist."

You are of course allowed to upvote or downvote a post for any reason you like. We would prefer people actually vote according to the quality of the argument and whether it contributes anything interesting or new to the discussion (even if you disagree with the post!), rather than using it as an Agree/Disagree button, but most people do the latter. We would really prefer people not use the Report button to call the mods' attention to posts, presumably with the intent that we should warn or ban someone, because you don't like their opinion.

(which does not reveal to the volunteer jannies whether it's in the queue for AAQCs or negative reports or both)

A silly mod score doesn't memory hole an X times reported AAQC post or hide it from the editorial review process, I hope. Every time I've participated it hasn't been very difficult to tell what's in there for AAQC review. I've downgraded "High Quality" posts to "Good" in the janitor queue because of that. There are more than a few posts I'd like to see more of that are not at AAQC threshold, because it is its own special gold sticker.

Now that I know the volunteer janny institution has been captured via a Long March, I'll have to escalate my Affirmative Action charity upvotes to more subversive acts.

A silly mod score doesn't memory hole an X times reported AAQC post or hide it from the editorial review process, I hope.

It does not. The janny score gives us some community feedback, but mods make the final decision.

It's currently sitting at a "Bad" rating--meaning most of the volunteers going through the queue marked it as "Deserves a warning or ban."

Is it alternatively possible that the vast majority rated it "bad" directly and few rated it above? Not sure how the algorith works because the banner says it has some swcret sauce

Always and everywhere democracy fails the same way. Even mottizens cannot resist the sweet sweet nectar of power over their enemies. You have seen it. You know it to be true.

PalpatineUnlimitedPowaaaaah.jpeg

It's currently sitting at a "Bad" rating--meaning most of the volunteers going through the queue marked it as "Deserves a warning or ban."

Absurd, frankly, and highlights why I've generally backed away. I really like many posters here, I agree with many of them on core issues, I disagree with the OP here, but it's a good post. I think it's wrong! A lot! But it's an honest effort to engage and flagging it for warning or ban is absurd.

I have to assume a few members are simply looking at who posted it and reacting off of that.

My most commonly chosen option for posts is “neutral”; I really only bust out the “bad” option when something didn’t technically break rules but is really shitty for whatever reason. Usually poor writing and poor logic combined, and also exceptionally annoying.

I think I'm more generous with 'Bad' than I would otherwise be because the 'Deserves a Warning' and 'Deserves a Ban' options are there. I use 'Bad' for any post that I think is technically within the rules, but is, in a vague, hard-to-rigorously-define sort of way, the sort of thing that I would like to see less of around here.

I believe the instructions for the queue are to not overthink it and give your immediate response, so I try not to feel too bad about giving a vibes-based response.

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