site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3mo ago (text post)   4896 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for January 2026

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.

Quality Contributions to the Main Motte

@PokerPirate:

@FiveHourMarathon:

@daguerrean:

@cjet79:

@thejdizzler:

Contributions for the week of December 29, 2025

@rae:

@100ProofTollBooth:

@Dean:

@Bleep:

@Zephyr:

Contributions for the week of January 5, 2026

@atokenliberal6D_4:

@Hieronymus:

@daguerrean:

@self_made_human:

@Sloot:

@Dean:

@urquan:

Contributions for the week of January 12, 2026

@FCfromSSC:

@rokmonster:

@Throwaway05:

@JeSuisCharlie:

@self_made_human:

@gattsuru:

@Rov_Scam:

Contributions for the week of January 19, 2026

@MartianNight:

@OliveTapenade:

@Amadan:

@coffee_enjoyer:

@birb_cromble:

@FCfromSSC:

@Meyerlemon:

@JTarrou:

@ndclavier:

Contributions for the week of January 26, 2026

@Catsnakes_:

@TiltingGambit:

@Grant_us_eyes:

@ndclavier:

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The protestors do not pose a military threat to the government. Rather, they pose a rhetorical, political, and optics threat. Civil disobedience, hunger strikes, tying oneself to a tree, blocking roads; these are all ways to bait someone (usually government) into a heavy-handed reaction. The theory (and practice) is that the reaction drums up sympathy for the protestors and their cause. The force comes from the one-sided media though, not the protesting itself. Protest should be understood as a tool that the citizens (at the media's direction) use against the government - very similar to 2nd Amendment.

Protest organizations clearly say that it is about creating scenes with Law Enforcement.

So, yes these protests are social functions. And yes, there is no need for the protestors to actually think they are fighting fascism. If people really actually believed the were fighting a fascist regime, we'd see more deadly attacks on Law Enforcement and less protesting. The rhetorical and political power of the media can indeed cause governments to act (or not), so it's kind of reasonable for protestors to think they are invincible. They are of course, the rightful side of legitimate American power. Do not mind how they call themselves the underdog - that's part of the theatre script.

The issue I have isn’t that they’re making noise or something to get attention. It’s that they have little interest in a message let alone any message discipline. The 1960s Civil Rights Movement, had all of those things. They had a clear message and agenda and everything they did was in service to those ends. The counter sit ins worked because it was disruptive, but it was also a quiet but powerful protest because the point was that no one should get served unless everyone does, and they were willing to be arrested to get that message out. Even the Rosa Parks incident had been carefully set up — in fact there was another woman who was refused the privilege of being the woman who refused to give up her seat because she had skeletons in her closet and they needed the credibly that a woman with a clean past would give to the movement. It wasn’t random people blocking cars, there was a message and the planning happened to get the message out and use that message to get an actual change. It was entirely predicated on making a real change and worked to achieve it.

The difference is that the goals of this protest movement would be highly unpopular if it were stated directly. Likely, a lot of the protestors themselves aren't consciously aware of the goal of the movement. That goal is demographic and policy changes that favor the Democratic party (no voter ID, no immigration enforcement, handouts for underclass clients) as well as increasing enthusiasm and entrenching identity among the Democratic base.

The part that is mentioned out loud is the socially acceptable tip of the iceberg (kindness to immigrants). And we do see messages of kindness and fairness repeated with some degree of uniformity and discipline.

Sort of. I see the average rank-and-file person more or less playing Knighthood in the manner of Don Quixote— it’s not so much that they even care about the cause as often as they care about the images of themselves as the heroes of a great drama opposing the big bad. If you really want to make it hard for the government to find illegal immigrants, it’s seem rather obvious that moving some to the suburban white neighborhoods the protestors hailed from would be much more effective than showing up with signs around the all Latin neighborhoods where ICE will find them. Or quietly donating to a legal charity for immigration lawyers. But those aren’t sexy or require actual sacrifice without validation.

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