site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14236 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.

They don’t have to give any reasoning for banning guns other than “prevent shootings.” Also they can just ignore this shooting if it isn’t politically advantageous. I don’t think the left is losing sleep over this

It's Canada. They already have more gun control than they ever thought they were going to.

There aren't enough guns left to ban for that (they already blew their loads on this 4 and 2 and 1 year ago), and the lack of coverage about what the guns the shooter used (along with how fatal the attack was given the near-immediate response time) suggests they weren't special in any way- likely a bog-standard hunting rifle or shotgun.

It's going to get ignored for that reason. The gun-banning side will take an L, since most of the narrative is "u need to ban guns to protect wimminz", and this guy being [allowed to be] a woman damages that narrative- it's best for them it disappear.

Isn't Canada in the midst of a gun buyback? Seems like a buyback should override any concern over details like what kind of weapon was used. But, the Canadian public may be more discerning than Americans on gun control. Here the type of weapon used is a tertiary consideration, at best. It's a gift to advocates if a shooter uses a scary gun, but none have let a shooting go to waste because it doesn't line up with the bill that's already in the chamber.

Isn't Canada in the midst of a gun buyback?

Kind of. Half the country is in the midst of something that could charitably be called a buyback.

The Federal Government has zero credibility on the issue, and they haven't taken any of the obvious opportunities to improve. If you properly file for the buy"back", then they won't guarantee any money, nevermind guaranteeing a fair price. They capped the payouts at about $250M, planning for 136k guns (vs. industry estimates of 500k+).

I also heard (and subsequently debunked) that they were giving themselves two months to do the paperwork, not that they were giving gun owners two months to apply. That tells you something about the current state of affairs.

Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Yukon are all obstructing it to various amounts because Trudeau was disastrous to national unity, both with specific policies (like this) and with his general attitude.

none have let a shooting go to waste because it doesn't line up with the bill that's already in the chamber

Sure, but none of the perpetrators have been expressly, blatantly, inescapably representative of every Establishment failure.

This is part of why they want to call him a woman, but it forces the anti-gun side in particular to give up being able to use the superweapon of blaming men; conversely, allowing them to call him a man costs them credibility with the TRAs.

If the government can't protect against attacks like this, and the reason it can't protect against attacks like this is that it let an ugly/unpopular Progressive token minority off the hook while acting to punish everyone else (and in a way that directly led to their children being killed), at a time where the government can't even keep the fucking nation together?

Then yeah, I'd be trying to lay low too. The most rabid anti-gunners in Canada might be tempted to go full Twitter meltdown, but if they do their time as a political force in Canada will be over.

and the reason it can't protect against attacks like this is that it let an ugly/unpopular Progressive token minority off the hook while acting to punish everyone else

Empirically, the only way you can protect against spree killings by psychos is to deny the general population (many of which are unfortunately, undiagnosed psychos) weapons.

Empirically, the only way you can protect against spree killings by psychos is to deny the general population (many of which are unfortunately, undiagnosed psychos) weapons.

Empirically, this ship sailed long ago, at least in North America. There are at least 600 million guns, possibly one billion, out there, and they are not going away.

The Nice truck attack had a bigger body count than most mass shootings.

And we don't give the general public access to trucks, partly for exactly that reason. Even in the hoplophobic UK, it is harder to get a cat D endorsement on your driving licence (needed to drive a vehicle over 7.5T) than a rifle permit. Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had taken a job as a trucker about a year before the incident - it isn't obvious if this was a long-term evil scheme like Atta's flying lessons, or if it was a career decision that created an opportunity down the line.

Even in the hoplophobic UK, it is harder to get a cat D endorsement on your driving licence

But, I presume, it is much easier to acquire heavy truck than rifle. Someone on path of jihad does not need any licenses anymore.

Even in the hoplophobic UK

I understand the point you're making, but the adjective "hoplophobic" is weird to me. As tools for intimidation, guns are specifically designed to be scary. You should be scared of guns. If someone is pointing a gun at you, fear is an entirely appropriate emotional response.

I understand the point you're making, but the adjective "hoplophobic" is weird to me.

It began long ago, as matter of gun nuts mocking political correctness that loves terms like "homophobia" (transphobia was not yet on the horizon at this time). It was always tongue-in-cheek inside joke.

You should be scared of guns.

Guns are chunks of metal that can't harm anyone on their own. You should be scared of people carrying guns, if they are sus characters up to no good.

And we don't give the general public access to trucks, partly for exactly that reason. Even in the hoplophobic UK, it is harder to get a cat D endorsement on your driving licence (needed to drive a vehicle over 7.5T) than a rifle permit.

Isn't it weird then that I met a lot more truck drivers than gun owners?

Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had taken a job as a trucker about a year before the incident - it isn't obvious if this was a long-term evil scheme like Atta's flying lessons, or if it was a career decision that created an opportunity down the line.

The point is that if someone wanted to use a truck in an evil scheme, it's trivial to do so. Money is some concern but there are literal subsidies for people who want to get a truck license, and the criteria to get one aren't particularly high. It's the quintessential working class job.

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