site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   17099 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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 (EDIT: positive) 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.

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

None of these are negative rights dude. The last one is the most ridiculous example of a positive right I've ever heard. I could maybe see the hormones thing as a negative right but only in the way that you would be obligated to burn down the FDA if you believed.

Sorry, I mixed up positive/negative rights there (I have edited my comment to correct this)

But you can just reframe positive rights as negative rights, e.g.

  • Positive: Trans women have the right to use the women's locker room
  • Negative: People have the right not to be excluded from locker rooms on the basis of their sex

And just generally, "I have a right to X" --> "I have a right to not be deprived of X"

Right, but I think we have a carve out where advocating for harms through government action is acceptable. If my friend advocates the government raise taxes on me by $1000, I should tolerate this civilly, but them advocating for a criminal to mug me and steal $1000 is very different, even if the end result to me is the same.

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.

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