site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   30228 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.

In an update on the case of the 5 year old kid in a blue hat taken away by ICE, Judge orders release of 5-year-old detained by immigration authorities in Minnesota.

I was curious what the judge actually wrote, so I delved into the actual court opinion which I found here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172886492.9.0_3.pdf . And it seems this judge clowned himself with the most insane deranged court opinion I've ever seen. I've seen some performative court opinions, but I think this one takes the cake with gems like:

Apparent also is the government's ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence.

Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.

Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned.

Interestingly, the court opinion makes exactly 0 legal arguments to support its decision.

I'm increasingly disappointed that activist judges aren't even pretending to be arbiters of the law, but are just doing whatever they want. Of course you expect an enemy judge to make his decision and figure out the justification later, but you expect them to at least think backwards and figure out some kind of fig leaf of legalese to claim that he actually believe that is the law. Instead this judge makes a mockery of the process. And of course for whatever reason, federal judges have never been punished for not doing their jobs.

At least the kayfabe of pretending we live in a country with laws I think is critical for legitimacy. At least for now the court of appeals can write a quick "your a retard" order on Monday, but even so it's a bad look.

For a neutral-ish perspective on the court opinion, try giving an AI the court opinion and asking what it thinks.

PS: AI told me that that the same judge is a known joker and is known for writing this punny though legally sound opinion here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/harvard_pdf/8725121.pdf

I'm increasingly disappointed that activist judges aren't even pretending to be arbiters of the law, but are just doing whatever they want.

To me this, just proves that the Trump admin has (accidentally?) struck a small vein strategic gold. Apparently directly antagonizing the left causes a small but significant fraction of their institutionally embedded partisans to lose control and let their masks slip. This seems like evidence in favor of the efficacy of further accelerationism and direct antagonism from the right. Previously, it was believed by many on the right that long-march leftists were simply too clever, disciplined, and coordinated to challenge directly. Instead, the only option was to "exit" or to go full Benedict Option. But no longer. It must be frustrating for the more self-possessed and strategically-minded leftist partisans who are quietly manipulating procedural outcomes in a plausibly deniable way. Their grandstanding compatriots are giving away the game.

Apparently directly antagonizing the left causes a small but significant fraction of their institutionally embedded partisans to lose control and let their masks slip.

Too bad for Trump that it doesn't matter. Similarly to when 4chan tricked the left into thinking the OK sign was a racist thing... it didn't knock the left out of power, it just mean now you could get canceled for the OK sign.

Cancelling people for the OK sign does have the potential to alienate normies though, provided that the anti-woke media spins it the right way.

I don't think people here understand how totally goulish "Mother of two shot through window of car as she tries to escape", "ER nurse who loved his dog and had a concealed carry permit shot in back X times by ice after his weapon was seized trying to defend woman", "Small child in cute hat taken into ICE van, has to be forcibly released by judicial order." looks.

You can look at the images on your screen, and no amount of "But the context! She was a radical! He was a terrorist who scuffled with the cops a week before! Little bro was illegal!" is gonna matter. It's the vibes that count here, and the vibes are rancid.

I might put something on the main culture war thread next week, but as a practice draft of that comment: This is the Worst Thing To Happen in optics since Iraq, a war so bad yet so important to the cultural right it got a black guy elected president and made a generation more atheist and more leftist than anything since the great depression.

If the rightists don't learn from the past, it's gonna happen again.

Optics debates are inherently bad faith. Every time someone says "The optics of this are good/bad!", they're manifesting their own claim.

Personally, I think Democrats really need to worry about their optics of "retarded, violent street crazies". And all of those white, Democrat Karens harassing Latino and gay/black Feds! Dems look so racist it's crazy! Just like they did with Bull Conor and segregation. Terrible optics. They really need to spend a lot of time defending themselves over this crap.

But isn't it true that the american public is largely moving against ICE in polls? Incidentally I also think that it's crazy what the "protestors" are getting away with, including being called protestors in the first place. But unfortunately, most people don't seem to agree, which is what the optics argument is referring to. Yes, the bad optics are also arguably partially downstream from highly sophisticated media propaganda, but not entirely, and it doesn't change the fact that most people who hear about this are against it.

My point is that "optics" as a concept has a pseudo-Uncertainty Principle. Because it's entirely about appearances and impressions, it's impossible to talk about without interacting with it. For example, saying this

But isn't it true that the american public is largely moving against ICE in polls?

Normalizes the idea it's purporting to describe. The line between descriptive and prescriptive blurs. You could just as easily say that in spite of all the rioting and harassment and crimes, a large majority of Americans still want to deport all illegals and a supermajority want to deport all illegal criminals.

We're a decade past the two screens epiphany. "Optics" are extremely silo'd. Addressing the concept at all necessarily involves accepting a partisan framing, which necessarily involves promulgating it.

There is no dispassionate analysis here. It is impossible to talk about "optics" without defacto engaging in Mean Girls style social manipulations.

But unfortunately, most people don't seem to agree,

And stating this normalizes that belief. The choice of framing itself functions as an act of persuasion.

The Motte is a tiny and obscure forum. Posts here are not going to normalise anything or materially affect the outcome of the culture war, even on the off chance that they persuade a significant number of posters here. In fact, assuming this is necessary to make it possible to have a reasonable debate here at all; if you treat this forum as a pulpit where posts must be judged for their effect on the course of history rather than their factual content, you just reproduce the grandstanding popularity contest dynamics of Xwitter and Reddit.

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