site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28075 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The point of separating them was to express disdain for them. Libertarians here tend to read practical motivations into anything. No, if there were such motivations, they weren't very central to the idea. People forced blacks to use segregated water fountains because they got utility from forcing blacks to use segregated water fountains.

This is an extension of the quokka idea, except instead of "it's hard to imagine someone would want to harm me, just because", it's "it's hard to imagine that someone would want harm black people, just because".

The point of separating them was to express disdain for them.

What's your evidence/argument for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like to understand your reasoning.

"it's hard to imagine that someone would want harm black people, just because".

Well this is based on my experience. Of course I never lived in the Jim Crow south, but I've witnessed a lot of discrimination against blacks -- all of it was what could be called "rational discrimination." An example of this kind of discrimination is the example of the Nigerian cabbie who tries to avoid picking up young black men late at night because he perceives a much greater chance of being robbed.

What's your evidence/argument for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just would like to understand your reasoning.

This is like software patents where an idea is so obvious that nobody bothers to write it down. Are you seriously saying you've never observed discrimination that is just fundamentally based on not liking another race?

Are you seriously saying you've never observed discrimination that is just fundamentally based on not liking another race?

Over the years, I have observed what appears to be such, yes. But even assuming that what could be termed "irrational discrimination" exists, it doesn't follow that a given instance of discrimination is of this type.

This is like software patents where an idea is so obvious that nobody bothers to write it down.

It sounds like believe your position is so obviously correct you don't even need to supply any evidence or reasoning for why it is correct. I would have to disagree.

We know that "rational" discrimination exists. Therefore, one cannot automatically assume that a given instance of discrimination is not rational.

You're privileging the hypothesis. People who wanted segregated fountains described them in terms that indicate disdain for other races. The default assumption should then be to assume that is true unless you have a specific reason to believe otherwise. Defaulting to "it must be economic" is absurd. It's always possible that they are lying to themselves and actually have economic reasons, but that shouldn't be the default.

I also don't feel like being filibustered, and there's a type of filibuster where people keep asking for evidence for well known things just to create more work for their opponents. It is not possible to know the slightest bit about the subject and be unaware that segregated drinking fountains are rooted in disdain for blacks and not in economic reasons. I do not need to provide evidence for it. That's like going to a physicist and asking him to prove that atoms exist. He could probably refer you to some textbook, but overall it's just a waste of his time.

People who wanted segregated fountains described them in terms that indicate disdain for other races.

Ok, this is a piece of evidence. Perhaps weak, but let's see. Please give me 3 links and quotes.

The default assumption should then be to assume that is true unless you have a specific reason to believe otherwise.

I don't necessarily agree, since people frequently lie about their motivations. But let's see your evidence.

Defaulting to "it must be economic" is absurd.

You're privileging the hypothesis.

I don't recall doing so. Can you please quote me where I "default[ed]" to such a hypothesis?

It is not possible to know the slightest bit about the subject and be unaware that segregated drinking fountains are rooted in disdain for blacks and not in economic reasons.

I would have to disagree with this. My knowledge regarding segregation era policies comes from a source which I now know to be biased. I also know that at least some discrimination against blacks is "rational." So it's reasonable to be skeptical.

and there's a type of filibuster where people keep asking for evidence for well known things just to create more work

If you believe that I am discussing this in bad faith, well, I disagree. But you are of course free to disengage.

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