site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   27088 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.

I can nominate @ArjinFerman or @Corvos, if they're willing to accept. I'd be happy to not bother with an escrow if you're fine with it, given the lower sums involved.

My proposed terms are clear concessions on an acquittal or conviction, and if this somehow doesn't resolve in 2 years, a general throwing up of hands and acceptance that we're never getting to the bottom of this.

I'm grateful for your confidence in me! FWIW I thought about it like Arjin, but I've given my ID to a few mottizens now and I don't really want to get into a habit of it. If it's important I certainly can, but it seems like it's not necessary in this case.

I'm fine with the honour system if you are -- thanks anyways @ArginFerman!

So AIUI -- no resolution if neither of these two is tried on these charges (ie. some plea bargain to a lesser offense would be no bet; a guilty plea on what's described above is probably a win for me though?), or if nothing happens within two years.

In the event of a trial, I need a guilty verdict; "not proven", hung jury, not guilty etc. all resolve in your favour.

If you have any other scenarios we should cover, let me know?

I don't think we have juries here, but that's a nitpick. Those rules sound fine, though I'll note that I'd want the money myself instead of a donation to a charity, though I'd donate if necessary. And if that's the case, it has to be a charity that is legal to donate to in the UK, our free speech norms are a tad limited.

"no donations to the Stormfront server fund," got it.

I'd also prefer the cash -- details on that can be TBD; it depends how private you need to be I suppose, but we can figure it out. (and I'm gonna say ~50/50 we won't have to given the "no bet" possibilities)

Sounds good to me. We officially on?

I'm in!

I don't think we have juries here

Unless Scotland has a different judicial system than England, you do. Though you might soon be right either way, because Starmer wants to get rid of them.

Apparently they are used only for "serious crimes" so probably not in this case. Unless it were to be framed as sexual assault, which seems unlikely.

Also it seems as though as of this year they've eliminated the Scottish quirk of "not proven" as an option for juries -- hard to say what the impact might be, but I don't think that's a verdict that judges return so it shouldn't impact the bet.

That's very flattering, but every time I looked into privacy-preserving ways of transferring money, it turned out to be a massive hassle, possibly bordering on impossibility. Personally, for my bets I prefer agreeing to donate to a charity of each person's choice, and taking the counterparty at their word (+ maybe a screenshot, though they're so easy to fake, it's effectively the same thing).

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