site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   20364 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.

But it isn't (and you don't). The judicial system understands that these laws are only supposed to be used against the right, so they refused to even approve charges against Lemon.

Well from what I understand, the feds requested arrest warrants as to 3 or 4 individuals (including Lemon) and the arrests were approved as to everyone except Lemon. This suggests that there really is some kind of weakness in the case against Lemon.

Do you happen to know what exactly the evidence against him? I've searched for it online but haven't found anything.

I expect him to claim that he was there doing journalism, and as such not a part of the group disrupting things; a 1A vs 1A battle!

The truth of that claim will probably be more important than balancing the right to worship with the right to journalist, but I expect that is the issue.

AFAIK there are relatively few "journalism"-specific 1A protections, in part because journalism is a bit nebulous around the edges. There is a bit of a tradition of police leaving journalists alone, but a "press" vest doesn't actually impart specific legal protections against, say, lawful disperse orders. If there were, we'd have to decide who qualified: "yes officer, I'm just here because I might blog about it in the next month."

Religion is also a bit nebulously defined, but a church is a pretty central example and there is a long tradition of special protections there.

I've searched for it online but haven't found anything.

If you wait for a few days, the indictment listing the actual charges and evidence should be posted somewhere on RECAP.

Do you happen to know what exactly the evidence against him?

His livestream?!

What are we even doing man...

His livestream?!

What exactly did he do?

Edit: By the way, I think it's pretty likely that he helped plan and organize the disruption and/or actively participated. I'm just wondering what the evidence is.

The entire livestream is still up on his personal YouTube channel (the action is all in the first hour or so). He travels with the group from the staging area to the church. It is clear from how he covers the lead-up that he is in on the plot.

I'm not sure how they'll get him specifically on the FACE Act charges, but he does seem to be part of the conspiracy, and that's what they need for the KKK Act charges.

I donno. Maybe how prostitution isn't illegal if you film it, because it's now pornography, maybe Don Lemon is going with some "It's not a civil rights violation if you film it, then it's news!" defense. Although, first, that seems questionable given how much he participates and second, the people who filmed the Arbery murder are still serving life sentences just for being there, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

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