site banner
PaperclipPerfector  22hr ago (text post)   3885 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Winter Olympics is happening right now. Is it just me, or do the Olympics feel like they are far less culturally relevant than they used to be?

  1. The Olympics viewership relies on some degree of nationalism. Nobody watches bobsledding outside of the Olympics. People only care insofar as they’re pulling for Team USA to win as many as possible. Less nationalism=less care
  2. Social media and infinite entertainment options means nothing can ever achieve the cultural omnipresence of things before social media’s explosion. I don’t think there will ever be another Harry Potter.
  3. The athletes are too transparently mercenary. Why was Joel Embiid, a Cameroonian guy playing for Team USA basketball in the Olympics? Because the NBA is in the USA so he lives here for work and would never get a gold solo-carrying Cameroon. Hard to have national pride when Team USA is just a collection of international athletes we paid for.

Because the NBA is in the USA so he lives here for work and would never get a gold solo-carrying Cameroon.

For individual sports, this sometimes goes the other way: many sports cap athletes per country, so you sometimes see athletes that would miss a big national team fly the flag of an alternate citizenship despite training elsewhere just to make it to the competition.

Social media and infinite entertainment options means nothing can ever achieve the cultural omnipresence of things before social media’s explosion. I don’t think there will ever be another Harry Potter.

Correct, and I unapologetically, nostalgically miss this.

I remember how universal things like the Super Bowl, New Year's Eve Ball Drop, State of the Union Address, certain movies (Titanic), and even big T.V. show events (Friends finale) were. It didn't matter if they were high art or "actually good" or not, it was that they acted as a sort of social-cultural barometric calibration. If you weren't talking about Britney Spear's 2001 Superbowl half time show at the water cooler (or in homeroom at school) the next day, you were an out of touch loser. You could shit on it, that was fine, but strolling in and going "Did you see that the Mongolian congress had a meeting while sitting on horses?" was a hanging offense.

Again, I'll admit nostalgia. It just seemed like for these short moments a few times a year, there was a big pause on the randomness of individual hive life and a singular orientation to whatever the "thing" was. People also consumed it fully in real time. No one would watch the State of The Union via live tweets, they'd just watch the damn speech. No live blogging, streaming, or video of people watching what everyone else was watching (watch parties).

I remember how universal things like the Super Bowl, New Year's Eve Ball Drop, State of the Union Address, certain movies (Titanic), and even big T.V. show events (Friends finale) were. It didn't matter if they were high art or "actually good" or not, it was that they acted as a sort of social-cultural barometric calibration. If you weren't talking about Britney Spear's 2001 Superbowl half time show at the water cooler (or in homeroom at school) the next day, you were an out of touch loser. You could shit on it, that was fine, but strolling in and going "Did you see that the Mongolian congress had a meeting while sitting on horses?" was a hanging offense.

Yeah, it used to be that television sets had 2 dials - the upper dial with 3-5 main channels; and the lower dial which was a sort of ghetto of alternative programming. With a setup like that it's easy to see how there were a lot of programs watched by (seemingly) nearly everyone.

From "The Refragmentation" by Paul Graham:

The consolidation that began in the late 19th century continued for most of the 20th. By the end of World War II, as Michael Lind writes, "the major sectors of the economy were either organized as government-backed cartels or dominated by a few oligopolistic corporations."

For consumers this new world meant the same choices everywhere, but only a few of them. When I grew up there were only 2 or 3 of most things, and since they were all aiming at the middle of the market there wasn't much to differentiate them.

One of the most important instances of this phenomenon was in TV. Here there were 3 choices: NBC, CBS, and ABC. Plus public TV for eggheads and communists. The programs that the 3 networks offered were indistinguishable. In fact, here there was a triple pressure toward the center. If one show did try something daring, local affiliates in conservative markets would make them stop. Plus since TVs were expensive, whole families watched the same shows together, so they had to be suitable for everyone.

And not only did everyone get the same thing, they got it at the same time. It's difficult to imagine now, but every night tens of millions of families would sit down together in front of their TV set watching the same show, at the same time, as their next door neighbors. What happens now with the Super Bowl used to happen every night. We were literally in sync. [6]

In a way mid-century TV culture was good. The view it gave of the world was like you'd find in a children's book, and it probably had something of the effect that (parents hope) children's books have in making people behave better. But, like children's books, TV was also misleading. Dangerously misleading, for adults. In his autobiography, Robert MacNeil talks of seeing gruesome images that had just come in from Vietnam and thinking, we can't show these to families while they're having dinner.

I know how pervasive the common culture was, because I tried to opt out of it, and it was practically impossible to find alternatives. When I was 13 I realized, more from internal evidence than any outside source, that the ideas we were being fed on TV were crap, and I stopped watching it. [7] But it wasn't just TV. It seemed like everything around me was crap. The politicians all saying the same things, the consumer brands making almost identical products with different labels stuck on to indicate how prestigious they were meant to be, the balloon-frame houses with fake "colonial" skins, the cars with several feet of gratuitous metal on each end that started to fall apart after a couple years, the "red delicious" apples that were red but only nominally apples. And in retrospect, it was crap. [8]

But when I went looking for alternatives to fill this void, I found practically nothing. There was no Internet then. The only place to look was in the chain bookstore in our local shopping mall. [9] There I found a copy of The Atlantic. I wish I could say it became a gateway into a wider world, but in fact I found it boring and incomprehensible. Like a kid tasting whisky for the first time and pretending to like it, I preserved that magazine as carefully as if it had been a book. I'm sure I still have it somewhere. But though it was evidence that there was, somewhere, a world that wasn't red delicious, I didn't find it till college.

[6] I wonder how much of the decline in families eating together was due to the decline in families watching TV together afterward.

[7] I know when this happened because it was the season Dallas premiered. Everyone else was talking about what was happening on Dallas, and I had no idea what they meant.

[8] I didn't realize it till I started doing research for this essay, but the meretriciousness of the products I grew up with is a well-known byproduct of oligopoly. When companies can't compete on price, they compete on tailfins.

[9] Monroeville Mall was at the time of its completion in 1969 the largest in the country. In the late 1970s the movie Dawn of the Dead was shot there. Apparently the mall was not just the location of the movie, but its inspiration; the crowds of shoppers drifting through this huge mall reminded George Romero of zombies. My first job was scooping ice cream in the Baskin-Robbins.

Embiid was certainly aggressively recruited by USA Basketball, and likely also by other stars and coaches, to play for the US. USA Basketball was badly embarrassed by the failure of the 2004 team, which lacked star wattage and was badly constructed, and it has since prioritizes having a truly elite team, which is honestly needed amid improving international competition.

On Embiid's end, I mean, he came to the US in like 2012 at around age 18 and was drafted one year later. I dunno if he goes back to Cameroon in the offseason, but the reality of his life for a long time has been being a US NBA player. Are you mad about Hakeem Olajuwon's Dream Team medal too?

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