site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   24736 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Celebrities get more attention than regular people? Shocker.

I'd never heard of Epstein prior to his arrest. "Celebrity" is a bit of a reach.

Not quite the right word, perhaps. Still, is elites being more scrutinized by the public eye such an oddity?

No, absolutely not, provided the scrutiny is actually warranted (the Duke lacrosse case being a prominent example in which it was not).

Duke lacrosse bros weren’t celebrities

Duke lacrosse bros weren’t celebrities

Agreed. And if the accused individuals in the France case had been French bankers that nobody had ever heard of before, you can bet the case would have provoked a lot more outrage.

Even Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein weren't celebrities in the sense that they were relatively unknown before the accusations came out against them; the main reason they are well known is the accusations themselves.

Harvey Weinstein was extremely well known before the accusations themselves.

Harvey Weinstein was extremely well known before the accusations themselves.

The average person had no idea who Harvey Weinstein was before the infamous article came out. But anyway, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was a celebrity. Certainly Reid Seligmann had not been a celebrity.

He was well known in the movie industry and by film nerds and by the sorts of people who actually pay attention to movie credits (guilty as charged), but he wasn't really well known amongst the general public.

Yes, the "Duke lacrosse bros" weren't themselves celebrities, but also nobody knows or refers to them as individuals merely as pseudo-anonymous representatives of an elite University.

But that’s conflating things—elite and celebrity. The two do not always go hand in hand.

Yes, the "Duke lacrosse bros" weren't themselves celebrities, but also nobody knows or refers to them as individuals merely as pseudo-anonymous representatives of an elite University.

I think the key word here is "elite." The woke media were super excited about the idea of elite white frat-boy types gang-raping a black woman. It totally fit their Narrative.

Duke University is a celebrity because it is an elite university. Representatives of Duke University become celebrities by proxy in their representative role, which is why they are always referred to as "member of the Duke lacrosse team" rather than individually named.

Duke University is a celebrity because it is an elite university. Representatives of Duke University become celebrities by proxy in their representative role, which is why they are always referred to as "member of the Duke lacrosse team" rather than individually named.

What would you say about a university which is not elite, but still very well known. For example, Alabama or Texas A & M. Would you say those qualify as "celebrities" under your definition?

Yes, by definition (emphasis mine):

The state or fact of being well known, widely discussed, or publicly esteemed.

Being an elite institution is merely a way to become a celebrity, and likely in my mind the reason Duke University is.

Yes, by definition (emphasis mine):

The state or fact of being well known, widely discussed, or publicly esteemed.

Being an elite institution is merely a way to become a celebrity, and likely in my mind the reason Duke University is.

Well you are free to define the word "celebrity" very broadly - to even include all persons associated with any organization or institution which is well known.

It's worth noting that by your definition, virtually all elites are celebrities. But it's also worth noting that by your definition, a serious accusation of sexual assault against a celebrity is not necessarily something that gets much attention. For example, if a low level worker at Walmart is accused of sexually assaulting a co-worker (given that Walmart has literally millions of employees, this probably happens dozens of times a year, if not hundreds). And yet I am not seeing weekly headlines reading "Walmart worker accused of sexual assault!"

So it seems the "celebrity" hypothesis is insufficient to explain this phenomenon.

Sure. Being a celebrity doesn't guarantee it draws attention, it merely increases the likelihood that it will be, all else equal.

Exactly. I think your point is correct and conflating elite with celebrity misses a key point.

You could’ve also mentioned the UVA scandal.

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