site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   16379 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.

So Charlie Kirk is not entitled to his beliefs due to them potentially being against the absolute maximum freedoms for other people, or is simply not allowed to advocate for his beliefs in public if it may result in any modification of society that resembles that?

To be fair, Charlie Kirk said Biden was a "corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America." He was generally pretty decent to people and was willing to agree to disagree, but there's evidence of him occasionally making a controversial comment that would concern moderates and really piss the left off.

There are no direct calls for violence, but I'm pretty sure he made a few comments that kept the political temperature nice and high.

The point here is that we see extralegal justifications from both sides. I still think the Pretti shooting wasn't justified, but the extralegal justification for his shooting gets more arguable when a video of him behaving like a leftist agitator surfaces. People hate this type of person, especially here.

He can advocate for what ever he wants. If his beliefs are around restricting the negative rights of others then he can also face the consequences of what happens when people don't want their rights restricted.

The government should not be in the business of restricting speech, but people are allowed to respond to coordination of violence with violence. To do otherwise is just letting the fantasy of rabbinically-inclined and wordcells to replace reality

He can advocate for what ever he wants. If his beliefs are around restricting the negative rights of others then he can also face the consequences of what happens when people don't want their rights restricted.

The government should not be in the business of restricting speech, but people are allowed to respond to coordination of violence with violence. To do otherwise is just letting the fantasy of rabbinically-inclined and wordcells to replace reality

Please let us all know how you feel about Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. After all, he was fighting against the government trying to restrict his right to keep and bear arms.

I'm pro-ish... I'm not sure this is the gotcha you think it is.

Didn't plan it as a gotcha, just wanted to know if you were ideologically consistent

I like to think regardless of how batshit, heterodox and wacky my own thoughts are. I am at least honest, internally consistent and converse in good faith.

Yes but any elaboration at all of your concept means that essentially any speech that could be considered objectionable and/or catalyzing a group could be responded to via assassination.

Would you be equally comfortable with pro-choice advocates being assassinated due to directly advocating for something that could be equivocated to murder?

I'll admit its still cooking as a concept. I used to be much more of a free speech maximalist. I need to work on defining the boundaries a bit better. But to me this is a concept that I think is more accepted that people give credit for.

If you are at a bar and start mouthing off towards someone, they might enforce reality on you, through a punch to the face. I think people have gotten too used to the idea of words as a sacred inviolable medium and naturally that allows the verbally intelligent to exploit that to get away with things. Sometime you need to punch that person so they understand there is consequences to their rhetoric. Seems pretty basic. People have seem to have forgotten that and it has escalated to a point it is no longer just a punch.

That sounds an awful lot like you can murder anyone you want as long as they're a political enemy whose agenda can be framed in terms of 'rights' however nebulously. (All of them can.)

I am reminded of the activist who told me with tears in his eyes that throwing a David Bowie themed party constituted violence against the victims of sexual assault.

Moreover are you prepared to accept that, since you are clearly advocating for violence against those you disapprove of, it is entirely valid to gun down you yourself on the same principle?

With regards to the anti-ICE movement, it is very clearly an organised militia and no sane country could or should permit such behaviour to continue.

Well actually negative rights is a pretty defined concept. Coordinating violence is almost always used to remove or restrict NRs from people.

I am reminded of the activist who told me with tears in his eyes that throwing a David Bowie themed party constituted violence against the victims of sexual assault.

What negative rights is this David Bowie themed party removing from SA victims?

it is very clearly an organized militia and no sane country could or should permit such behavior to continue.

The 2nd amendment very clearly is designed, in part, for an organized militia, so this is about an unamerican statement as it comes. If anything the anti-ICE movement should avail themselves of their 2nd Amendment rights and have armed protestors protecting their right to protest. Obnoxious as they are.

Yes, but the problem is that anything can be defined as a negative right given sufficient desire. In this case it was the right not to be deeply harmed and re-traumatised by the rape culture inherent in celebrating the life of a man who once slept with an underage groupie (yes, that was the literal argument). Trans people have the right not to be genocided by people using the wrong pronoun. Etc. etc.

The 2nd amendment very clearly is designed, in part, for an organized militia, so this is about an unamerican statement as it comes.

Fair's fair, you got me. I'm a Brit who regards the American bill of rights as being broadly an insane document drafted by some intelligent but rather blinkered revolutionaries who could not conceive of an America 100/200/300/400 years old. It worked sort of okay for ruling a small number of extremely patriotic, highly confederated Anglo Americans but survived beyond that through a combination of unusual geography and very selective reading and interpretation, which is the Federal Government imposes limits on speech every day, why it interferes in commerce, etc.

None of which is a refutation of your point, of course. I do note that said militia would be fairly unlikely to support 2nd amendment rights as pursued by say the NRA.

I do note that said militia would be fairly unlikely to support 2nd amendment rights as pursued by say the NRA.

To my current eternal despair. Who knows maybe the silver lining will be that the left realizes the need for strong 2nd Amendment rights to protect against "Nazi Authoritarian Governments". I'm not holding my breadth. But the point of principles is to hold them regardless of costs. Otherwise they aren't really principles are they?

In this case it was the right not to be deeply harmed and re-traumatised by the rape culture inherent in celebrating the life of a man who once slept with an underage groupie

You have no negative right to restrict someone else. You are not being forced to go to that party and its existence does not constitute a restriction on you. I know this isn't your argument and that tortured lefties make stupid arguments but they get away with it because no one shuts them down.

maybe the silver lining will be that the left realizes the need for strong 2nd Amendment rights to protect against "Nazi Authoritarian Governments"

Your position is internally consistent. I don’t think I agree - the costs in death and internal disorder seem concrete to me while the benefits seem more theoretical - but that’s by the by.

I know this isn't your argument and that tortured lefties make stupid arguments but they get away with it because no one shuts them down.

I did shut it down, at some personal cost. But you cannot prove the assertion that ‘you are not being forced to go to that party and its existence does not constitute a restriction on you’ to somebody who claims that refusing to change the theme after their complaint is now a positive choice to exclude them.

It’s power against power, vote against vote, and sadly you don’t always have the power or win the vote.

He can advocate for what ever he wants. If his beliefs are around restricting the negative rights of others then he can also face the consequences of what happens when people don't want their rights restricted.

Says the "radical centrist" who doesn't think we are in a civil war. Yeah man, sometimes if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way, you just get assassinated in cold blood. Whatever. I'm a centrist.

And this is how they lie. Launder their radicalism in under the radar as "just being normal".

No.

Yeah man, sometimes if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way

I did not follow the guy, but looking at his Wikipedia page, he advocated the following:

  • Banning trans women from using women's locker rooms
  • A ban on trans gender-affirming care ("We must ban trans-affirming care — the entire country...")
  • The right for people to burn Pride and BLM flags.
  • Not wearing masks during COVID
  • Criminalising abortion

I have worded the above very carefully, to reflect stuff he literally said (as opposed to things that could be reasonably inferred, like "I believe marriage is one man, one woman" -> ban gay marriage)

The mechanism is not "abstract". He directly advocated for society to do things that would deprive certain people of (negative) rights. Nor is the harm "abstract" - it is a form of harm to not let trans women use the women's locker rooms, prevent them from getting hormones, not letting LGBT people live in a society where no one burns pride flags, etc

This logic cuts both ways, e.g. the trans activist's words attempt to deprive him of the right to live in a cisheteronormative society. But this logic is sound (both ways)

I'm not really going anywhere with this, because this sort of thinking basically ends with endless conflict. I can't think of a better practical option than just tabooing this sort of inference. But I do want to point out, for the sake of epistemic clarity, that it is not as simple as you claim.

The mechanism is not "abstract". He directly advocated for society to do things that would deprive certain people of (negative) rights. Nor is the harm "abstract" - it is a form of harm to not let trans women use the women's locker rooms, prevent them from getting hormones, not letting LGBT people live in a society where no one burns pride flags, etc

This is perfectly normal politics. These are simply table stakes. Government is about making people do things with the threat of violence. Which people, and why, are left to be determined by the people.

I wish you people would stop describing normal processes as somehow nefarious.

Democracy is supposed to be an alternative to murder and war, so when someone participating in Democracy as intended gets murdered for it, it's far beyond the pale. Yet "radical centrists" are indistinguishable from insane communists on this topic, justifying the cold blooded assassination of an effective political figure that was working against them.

This is perfectly normal politics. These are simply table stakes. Government is about making people do things with the threat of violence. Which people, and why, are left to be determined by the people.

I agree. It's just that when activists bring up this true fact (at least, the part about how their side is being oppressed), I think the honest (but very uncomfortable) counter-argument is: "yes, I do want to oppress you and restrict your rights, not because I hate you, but because each of our respective rights infringe on the other's"

But WC's characterisation of "if your speech in an abstract sense might harm others in some abstract way" seems to imply the opposite - that political speech doesn't cause harm to others. I am arguing that it in fact does.

Democracy is supposed to be an alternative to murder and war, so when someone participating in Democracy as intended gets murdered for it, it's far beyond the pale.

Agreed, and I think that description definitely describes Kirk. To me, Pretti doesn't count under this, because he committed a crime, was resisting arrest, and just generally not speaking peacefully (excluding nth order effects) like Kirk was.

But to leftists / liberals, these sorts of "0000001mm away from their faces" struggles with LEOs is seen as an integral part of Democracy ("ACAB" - so it is important to constantly antagonise them to make sure they know it's not okay to ever overreach), in the same way conservatives would view people like Kirk making speeches even when parts of the speeches might come across as offensive.

And YoungAchamian is pointing out that both of these are technically legal, and to their own side, it is the right and proper way to do things, and to the other side it violates the spirit of Democracy, if not the letter.

Maybe.

But I still think anyone claiming saying those things justifies your murder is not a centrist.

And if they are a centrist, as in that is actually point of fact the centrist position, I return to my "We are in a civil war" claims.

Notice the "Radical" in radical centrist, I ain't laundering shit. But nice stupid word game.

I like most motteposters am heterodox as hell.

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