site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   27095 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 2, 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.

The history of stasis- which is what we're going through- shows us that mutual deescalation is the only way out. Key word- mutual. Obviously Trump needs to deescalate. But so does the blue haired Karen(I thought these were different archetypes?). The Biden admin's approach to the 'war on domestic terror' was exactly wrong too.

Now this isn't, probably, going to happen, on either side. But Trump is term limited out in a way the blue-hairs(I remember a time when this meant something different) aren't. Ignoring Trump, backing down on the #resistance, running normal democrats without controversy, and letting cultural conservatives be has to be the start, simply because Trump will, for better or worse(and I suspect it will be, and can be, worse), is gone in January 2029. I don't know that they're capable of it, but it's a necessary start.

I thought these were different archetypes?

Old-school Karens were Gen X, stereotypically cynical and thus shamelessly abusing their privilege to humiliate service workers.

New Karens are Millennials, stereotypically idealistic and thus conscientiously abusing their privilege in the name of "the greater good".

The greater good.

Oh, shut it!

I should've written "basic human decency" to help those with an urge to quote.

”Bonum commune communitatis” intensifies

Well, she did have a very annoying laugh.

The best solution to an iterative prisoners dilemma was to alternate Tit-for-tat with cooperation, regardless of what the opponents strategy is. MN ICE is perhaps a suitable tat for Biden's tit of purposefully bringing in millions of immigrants. But it has to have a limit and then Conservatives need to try cooperation.

Edit: Blue hairs grew up and are now acting like insurrection Karens with law enforcement. Sorry if it's not the right descriptor, but I think you understood what I meant anyways.

Fair, but the dem leadership is straight up saying they're going to defect again next time they're in power. They should stop having the house minority leader announce his intention to prosecute everyone who works for ICE as table stakes.

The best solution to an iterative prisoners dilemma was to alternate Tit-for-tat with cooperation, regardless of what the opponents strategy is.

No. If the opponent's strategy is "Always Cooperate" or "Always Defect", the best strategy is the same for total payoff, and "Always Defect" for their own payoff.

I was going off of: https://tryingtruly.substack.com/p/how-generous-tit-for-tat-wins-at-life

Rule 1 - Be nice (technically meaning always co-operate on the first round).

Rule 2 - From then on just copy what the other player did in the previous round (meaning an eye for an eye and a hug for a hug).

Rule 3 - After you retaliate, always try to co-operate again in the next round.

This is for turn-based rounds. Simultaneous rounds “win-stay, lose-shift" wins. Does our electoral system more closely match turn-based or simultaneous?

If the opponent's strategy is "Always Cooperate" or "Always Defect", the best strategy is the same for total payoff, and "Always Defect" for their own payoff.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're actually playing iterative prisoner's dilemma against a variety of competing strategies (and we can't know what any given opponent is going to play), the "permanent retaliation strategy" (also called "tit for tat without forgiveness" - you cooperate until your opponent defects a single time, then you always defect no matter what) is optimal, both for individual and collective gain.

But yes, the "permanent defector" is not far off in points for individual payoff.

The best strategy when playing a counterparty with an unknown strategy is not the best strategy against every possible strategy. If you know the counterparty's strategy you can do better, and sadly if you know it's "Always Defect", the best you can do is to match it.

If you know the counterparty's strategy you can do better, and sadly if you know it's "Always Defect", the best you can do is to match it.

Well, yes, trivially.

The best strategy when playing a counterparty with an unknown strategy is not the best strategy against every possible strategy.

I think I don't get it. What's the difference? Is your point that "every possible strategy" contains some really dumb strategies and "a counterparty with an unknown strategy" must be assumed to be somewhat optimized?

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