site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27072 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.

Dayum, you managed to find a reason to use that one again! That's some dedicated hatin'!

Your dedication to insisting that nothing you said in the past should matter, sure is a sight to behold.

though I will point out that I didn't actually demand money stakes to "prove he really believed what he was saying."

I'm not really demanding money stakes either, I'm completely fine with a gentlemen's bet. It's just that he expressed concerns about relative probabilities, and with money you can do things like favorable odds that take them into account.

And yes I think he should prove he actually believes what he's saying. There's nothing unreasonable in stating that he doesn't.

Your dedication to insisting that nothing you said in the past should matter, sure is a sight to behold.

Never happened. I have not denied anything I've said in the past and in some cases I have even amended my opinion. I'm just bemused, as always, at the spite.

And yes I think he should prove he actually believes what he's saying. There's nothing unreasonable in stating that he doesn't.

Actually, accusing someone of not believing what they are saying is uncharitable and we frown on demands that someone "prove" they mean what they say. Likewise claiming that if you don't put money on it's proof that you don't.

I have not denied anything I've said in the past

Right, you do the "upper lip curl, go silent" strategy when it is clear that you have contradicted yourself. Contradicting yourself is an implicit denial of what you've said in the past. That you avoid explicit acknowledgement of your contradiction and denial is hardly a redeeming virtue.

Never happened, and I don't address your screeds because they are irrational and incoherent.

You have now explicitly denied what you have said in the past, and for which there are clear links. Anyone can just click the link and see that you contradicted yourself. It takes not even a modicum of effort.

You have absolutely no argument that anything of mine is irrational or incoherent. At least nothing other than ipse dixit. It is simply comparing your words to your words. If there is any irrationality or incoherence, it is your own.

Sure, bud.

Keep digging, bud. TBH, I haven't seen this level of bad faith aside from the likes of Darwin/SecureSignals. It's a truly bad look for a mod.

Actually, accusing someone of not believing what they are saying is uncharitable

I think it depends. I don't know if I can formulate a general rule at the moment, but for an example from the other side: I don't think saying Kulak doesn't actually believe in his violent rebellion fantasies is uncharitable.

Ironically, I think Kulak genuinely does believe in them, I just think he's an instigator who wants other people to take him seriously enough to act on his suggestions. But yes, I think his hatred and desire for violence is real.

And I think most people who claim to be afraid of fascism, or who think Trump is Hitler,.are being sincere. They are ignorant and sheltered and generally have no concept of what "fascism" would really look like, but like the black people who sincerely believe that cops hunt them in the streets or the trans and gay people who think they're going to be herded into camps any day now, being a fool duped by hysterical disinformation doesn't mean you don't actually believe what you're saying.

Ironically, I think Kulak genuinely does believe in them, I just think he's an instigator who wants other people to take him seriously enough to act on his suggestions. But yes, I think his hatred and desire for violence is real.

That's a reasonable take, but personally the guy is just a bit too preoccupied with spreadsheets about how his posts perform for me to take the content terribly seriously.

And I think most people who claim to be afraid of fascism, or who think Trump is Hitler,.are being sincere. They are ignorant and sheltered and generally have no concept of what "fascism" would really look like

This is an issue I have with "charity" and "steelmanning", it often results in attacking someone in an attempt to defend them. Is being ignorant worse than being insincere, or is it the other way around? Either way MadMozer doesn't strike me as either ignorant nor sheltered.

Well, you're not wrong that "You're an idiot" is not necessarily nicer than "You're a liar." But it makes a difference whether someone is being ignorant or being insincere. If you want to argue with someone, you should generally assume they mean what they say. Ignorance should be something you can demonstrate with counterarguments. I get annoyed when people accuse me of lying because, besides not being a liar, what am I supposed to say? You can't read my mind and I can't prove my internal mental state.

That doesn't mean all arguments are genuine. There are definitely people here who argue disingenuously. Not just the obvious trolls, either. But it tends to be an accusation people throw sloppily because they're angry or outraged at the argument itself.

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