site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   21583 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Apparently the lesson they took from civil disobedience was that intentionally breaking the law to force consequences shouldn't have the consequences. The whole point of this sort of protesting is to get arrested in such a manner that people think it's unjust, not fight the cops and try to flee.

Weren't a lot of the civil disobedience cases (or at least the high-profile ones) directly related to their goals, rather than interfering with federal officers? e.g. staging a sit-in at a restaurant counter, where they absolutely would (theoretically) purchase and eat a meal like anyone else should the proprietor serve them, rather than by (say) forming a cordon and blocking anyone from eating there.

Weren't a lot of the civil disobedience cases (or at least the high-profile ones) directly related to their goals, rather than interfering with federal officers? e.g. staging a sit-in at a restaurant counter, where they absolutely would (theoretically) purchase and eat a meal like anyone else should the proprietor serve them, rather than by (say) forming a cordon and blocking anyone from eating there.

I don't know, but I think the basic idea of civil disobedience is to publicly and openly violate a law which law you believe to be unjust.

So that if you block a highway as a form of protest, it's arguably not really civil disobedience. You aren't saying that there shouldn't be laws against blocking highways. Rather, you are just engaging in what I have called "Terrorism Lite." i.e. you are violating the law in order to in inconvenience and harm other people, but doing so short of direct violent attacks on human beings.

I think an important part of successful civil disobedience is that you have to appear sympathetic to onlookers. The fact that you're just trying to ride the bus and the cops insist on dragging you out in handcuffs makes them look deranged and you look like an innocent victim. If you're the one attacking the cops, you're the one who comes across as deranged.

I think an important part of successful civil disobedience is that you have to appear sympathetic to onlookers.

Sadly, the same is true of terrorism. I mean, it realize on having sympathetic journalists, politicians, etc. to imply that the terrorists have a legitimate grievance, that they were responding to oppression, etc.

Civil Disobedience-era also frankly would get policed a lot harder if they just rocked up aimlessly like the current ICE interference squad is.

Because it didn't really have consequences last time. MLK Jr. spent maybe a few weeks in jail, total, right? Civil disobedience in the US wasn't like in South Africa where they actually imprisoned Mandela for a long time -- it was just a show.

I believe they had more potent physical reprisals than the current ones. ICE isn't using dogs and water hoses

To say nothing of the fact that the KKK was most certainly a potent force, and they certainly did engage in bombings and other kinds of terrorism.

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