site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   16227 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you can find a clip of Charlie Kirk spitting on a woke snowflake and then roundhouse kicking her car causing enough damage that it is no longer street legal, then I will agree with this take.

The urge to create this in Sora is strong...

This is what I am talking about. In the OPs metaphor, Kirk is analogous those middle-school mean girls who go spread rumors, sick the teachers on you, maliciously turn people against you. All without actually personally inflicting violence on you. Their motives are to get fame, popularity, social cred, friends, all very banal human things. Are you the sort of person that when someone fights back violently, for being bullied, you punish them because those mean girls weren't physically violent? Or are you the adult that "plays dumb" because those mean girls need to face the consequences of their social violence?

If you are the former, then a lot of people on the right complain about this zero-tolerance fighting problem and how it punishes people for standing up for themselves. If you are the later then the Kirk situations is just that scaled up with far deadlier consequences.

Kirk is analogous those middle-school mean girls who go spread rumors

Even if this were true, "sticks and stones" is much more typical advice on dealing with meangirls than "it's OK if you want to shoot them in the neck"?

Probably because violence against mean girls has been so restricted that once something pops past the threshold it is insanely more violent than it should be. This is an argument that some earlier low level of violence probably would have prevented later lethal violence.

It is hilariously a very feminine argument that mean girls should just be ignored. You ever see the videos of female privilege to mouth off colliding with someone who doesn't recognize it? Maybe we really do live in a longhouse.

You are actually advocating for violence as a response to mean words?

Fascinating -- I do agree that men tend to be politer to each other because violence is always on the table -- but historically the accepted response to unacceptable speech is a challenge to violence, not skipping straight to the party.

If the dude had challenged Kirk to pistols at dawn in defence of his boygirl-friend's honour that would be fine with me -- but sneaking around to get yourself a sucker-punch opportunity is not in fact a masculine activity.

A challenge to violence is definitely the preferred approach but it is not always going to happen. Sometimes you just get punched. I'd argue that skipping straight to violence is because a challenge to violence is not legal and would be giving away the opportunity.

I'm openly unsure how to square this honor cultures being absolutely shit places to live.

You are actually advocating for violence as a response to mean words?

As a government policy? Absolutely not. As a social reality? Yes with caveats.

Sometimes you just get punched.

When is the last time you just got punched? Even in a barfight something like "you want a piece of me?" is usually de rigueur IME, and "stepping outside" is a real thing...

Notably this... actually is still pretty legal in most jurisdictions; "mutual combat" is also a real thing, and even in places where the courts would technically not accept it, a fight in which both participants were on board is highly likely to be ignored by authorities so long as it doesn't get too far out of hand.

I have deliberately never gotten into a bar fight as a post-college adult, violence and alcohol with strangers is a level of risk I am not interested it. So last time would be at a frat party in college when i was a bit more risk oriented. A lot more often in high school, where my verbally slow autistic self preferred to use violence.

Does Kirk strike you as the type to accept an offer of mutual combat? Or do you think he would call security and go back to "mouthing off"? I might be biased in thinking he is too much of a wordcell type to accept. I think mutual combat probably breaks down somewhere in the social dynamic between average joes and rich influencers.

And the result of following that advice was letting the mean girls run everything.

And wokies are mean girls in power

Kirk peacefully went and spoke with people in order to change their minds and promote his message.

You're equating that to someone interfering with federal officers while armed, multiple times, while shouting, "assault me."

It would be laughable if there were any humor in it.

There's humor in everything, you just need to look for it.

I am not claiming Kirk violently assaulted people, and I never have. There might be some sort of masculine honor in that at least. Instead, he advocated for the state to go inflict violence on people, he advocated for a return to laws and norms that would physically hurt his out group, he engaged in running political campaigns to do that. He knowingly kept the temperature of political discourse high and cultivated a following out of these efforts that provided him with a very very lavish lifestyle/worth. And he was effective in doing so. Apparently his out-group can predict the future better than you can, they felt this future violence, real or imagined. And they decided to act, to do something about it.

Act like a mean-girl, and maybe someone is going to violently attack you for it. Profit off of stirring tribal hate and division and maybe society should "Turn a blind eye" when some of that hate and violence finds you.

You keep saying that Kirk advocated for using state violence. Yeah, no fucking duh, that's called politics. You're making it out to be some sort of nefarious scheme when that's what all politics is about. That's why there are trannys in the first place, because of state violence threatening people.

You are not serious, and engagement with you is not in good faith.

You are not serious, and engagement with you is not in good faith.

I am and I'm sorry you feel that way.

That's why there are trannys in the first place, because of state violence threatening people.

So you understand what it feels like for activists to coordinate state violence against you and people like you then? You also understand the violent urge to respond to that? Yet you can't understand how your mirror, some lefty feels?

Not all politics is about abrogating negative rights of individuals via the state. Only tribal politics around radicalization and extremism.

Tell me, how advocating for relaxing zoning laws advocating for state violence? How does it remove your negative, natural law rights?

Yes I understand, but I don't go around killing people over it because I'm not deranged. I understand better than you because I'm not pretending that this state of affairs is strange or unusual or anything other than working as intended.

Not all politics is about abrogating negative rights of individuals via the state.

All politics is about collective action through monopoly on violence. Always, every time.

Isn’t this a generalized argument against any civil discourse? If that guy wins, my team loses, therefore pew pew. Should we all just go gangs of New York style and hit the streets with shillelaghs and cleavers instead?

We are having civil discourse right now, have I threatened your negative rights? Have I sought to remove them or advocated for their removal via first or known second order effects?

If that guy wins, my team loses, therefore pew pew.

Pure conflict theory, extremely tribal, us-vs-them mentality. Politics doesn't require you to take from other people. If your view point was correct why don't we see one side genociding the other after every election? Afterall if all politics is existential then why even have an election if you can't afford to lose.

It seems like it a generalized argument against civil discourse only if all politics can be interpreted as advocating for state violence against or in favor of X... which seems like quite a stretch.

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