site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12822 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There is hardly anything about this in the American media today.

American media fails to publish story about news likely to be highly damaging to the preferred narrative of American media, news at 11.

Canadian media already fucked up and said too much about who the shooter was, so it's too late to deny it. The fact they haven't reported anything else suggests the other facts of the case are likely not in the regime's favor.

I don’t feel the raw anger and hatred from when the Catholic school in Minnesota was hit.

Canadians are a lot more passive-aggressive than that.

The "female in a dress" line was perfect. I can see that really catching on.

A (young and incompetent sounding) American reporter from ABC NY called into the press conference last night and was referring to the shooter as a "gun-person" -- the cop answering questions mirrored it for a while but seemed unenthused; politicians today are picking it up in their statements so maybe it will catch on!

A true win for peoplekind...

I eagerly await the day I see the headline "3 killed by male wearing pants".

American media fails to publish story about news likely to be highly damaging to the preferred narrative of American media

Given the ubiquity of linking That One Onion Article every time there is a mass shooting in America, I'm always darkly tempted to post it when there is one elsewhere (it's not that infrequent). Frankly, I feel bad even making the reference here: it's a shitty, inaccurate headline that makes people feel morally superior in their smugness and does nothing for the real people who have died, and their loved ones having to live through it.

I recognize I'm not doing much better in this regard right now, but clearly Canadian gun laws as they stand didn't stop this one (or the last one a few years ago, nor Australia's laws the Bondi massacre, and I could go on). I'd like to think good law could do better, but it's hard to design non-authoritarian systems that cope with the idiosyncratic and sometimes violently unpredictable failure modes of the human psyche. Sometimes there are signs (which would have lots of false positives to aggressively filter on), and sometimes people just break, it seems.

I was more surprised than anyone else to find that, per capita, Australia reports 80% of the deaths from mass shootings as does the US. And that's after multiple gun buyback schemes which supposedly prevented mass shootings altogether.

"The only country", indeed.

As an Australian (I cringed writing that phrase, but I suppose it's necessary), I am consistently annoyed both by local firearms discourse and by the way foreigners try to weaponise it. The 1996 buyback as far as I can tell made little difference - firearm deaths were a straight line trending downwards prior to Port Arthur, and continued their descent afterwards, with no visible change. There's just no particularly strong evidence that the policy change did anything.

I've come to interpret most tightening of laws after a tragedy as being symbolic. The buyback after Port Arthur probably didn't have much effect, but it was expressive. The point was for the government to communicate, "We care, and we are taking this seriously." The reforms currently being proposed after Bondi are the same. Both additional firearm restrictions and additional speech restrictions have the same effect: they are very unlikely to actually reduce gun violence or anti-semitic feeling, but they signal, "We, the government, care about this, and are taking action."

The only people who lose out of these trade-offs are, well, the public. People whose rights to own what they want or speak what they want are shaved back another millimetre.

The 1996 buyback as far as I can tell made little difference - firearm deaths were a straight line trending downwards prior to Port Arthur, and continued their descent afterwards, with no visible change. There's just no particularly strong evidence that the policy change did anything.

In the article, I said that the buyback program must be judged a roaring success in the limited sense of reducing mass shooting deaths in Australia, even if it's only a qualified success relative to the equivalent metric in the US. But correlation obviously does not prove causation, and it's entirely possible the steep decline in mass shooting deaths after Port Arthur was just a particularly pronounced regression to the mean and the gun buyback program was coincidental. But even if the scheme did have an effect, its success relative to the US has been vastly overstated. The way progressives (namely John Oliver) talk about the scheme, you would think that mass shootings literally never happen in Australia anymore, as opposed to them occurring 20% less often per capita compared to the US.

The point was for the government to communicate, "We care, and we are taking this seriously."

Agreed, it's just the politician's fallacy.

I'm skeptical of drawing strong causal conclusions around mass shootings if only because the number of mass shootings is so low. If we just look at Wikipedia's list, in the 1990s there are seven after Port Arthur, and twelve before. Counting Port Arthur itself, that's twenty, for a total of two per year. I think that's too low to draw any sensible inferences. If we go past that, Wikipedia lists fourteen shootings in all of the 1980s, versus six in the 2000s, and ten in the 2010s.

14-20-6-10 is overall a decline, but one that I find perfectly plausible in terms of the overall decline deaths by firearms (both homicides and suicides) over the period. Overall I tend to agree with RAND's conclusion - the evidence that the NFA reduced firearm deaths is weak at best.

For what it's worth I don't think NFA-style reforms in the US would accomplish very much, and I'd tend to support Australia moderately loosening up our firearms laws. I don't feel very strongly about firearms and I'd be happy to trade it away as part of a compromise on some other issue, but I think we could safely do it, and in principle I'm in favour of people being able to own things that they want, unless there is some pressing reason why they shouldn't. I'm more exercised about speech, personally, where I do think our record is unimpressive, and I look at the American First Amendment with mild envy.

I've come to interpret most tightening of laws after a tragedy as being symbolic. The buyback after Port Arthur probably didn't have much effect, but it was expressive. The point was for the government to communicate, "We care, and we are taking this seriously."

Nope. It's so that anytime they want, the government can with maximum ease send men to your house to tie you up, rape your wife, kids, and pets to death in front of you (if you have any), and drag you off to some blacksite to do medical experiments on you for the rest of your days. That's what "monopoly on force" means.

This looks very much like an inflammatory claim posted for maximum heat and zero information.

You may have some strong feelings about government monopoly on force, but if the Australian government is sending men to tie up citizens and rape their wives, kids and pets to death and then drag them off to blacksites to perform medical experiments on them for the rest of their days, or if that is the intention behind gun control laws, then you need to provide some evidence.

You now have a very mixed record of AAQCs and low-effort trolling, with the trolling being more recent. It is not amusing.

but clearly Canadian gun laws as they stand didn't stop this one

It's worse for the regime in this case because there's an active confiscation going on. The government has been campaigning for the better part of a decade on it. AUS murders did not happen under those conditions and the victims were perceived as having it coming- not quite the same thing.

Sometimes there are signs

If the most uncharitable rumors are true, institutionalization in some form have already occurred.

it's a shitty, inaccurate headline

It's made solely to justify reprisal attacks on the outgroup.

It’s hardly even on Fox. They love to report on trans shooters. I don’t buy it.

95% true -- it's a very small town where everybody literally knows everybody, and neighbours etc. have more-or-less confirmed the shooter's identity (both kinds!) on twitter.

There are fake (well real, but the wrong person) photos of a ridiculous young tranny from Ontario floating around; AFAICT that person has the same last name but is not the shooter; a yearbook photo of Jesse Strang for Tumblr Tumbler Ridge shows a much better effort but is still identifiably trans.

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