site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   26600 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.

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.

Duke students are considered to inherit the social status of Duke University in a way in which Walmart employees are not for Walmart.

Duke students are considered to inherit the social status of Duke University in a way in which Walmart employees are not for Walmart.

How exactly does that work? What's the test for determining whether an associate of a celebrity is vicariously a celebrity?

Being a Walmart employee is a low paid job where workers are subject to management decisions that can cause them great harm, yet have no influence. Duke students are not employees, and since they pay for school, are assumed to be buying some influence.

Nobody would write a similar article about Duke university janitors committing rape.

Being a Walmart employee is a low paid job where workers are subject to management decisions that can cause them great harm, yet have no influence. Duke students are not employees, and since they pay for school, are assumed to be buying some influence.

Nobody would write a similar article about Duke university janitors committing rape.

Ok, let's see if I understand. (1) A customer of a "celebrity" institution is a celebrity; (2) a low level employee of a "celebrity" institution is not a celebrity; and (3) an influential employee of a "celebrity" institution is a celebrity.

Does that sum things up?

It's hard to define things as a list of items without running into edge cases, which is why you get questions like whether a hot dog counts as a sandwich.

A customer of a celebrity institution is more or less of a celebrity depending on how much the customer pays and benefits, among other things. Someone who walks into the Duke university school bookstore and buys a single T-shirt would not be treated in the media like a Duke student, even though he is a customer of Duke.

It's hard to define things as a list of items without running into edge cases, which is why you get questions like whether a hot dog counts as a sandwich.

A customer of a celebrity institution is more or less of a celebrity depending on how much the customer pays and benefits, among other things. Someone who walks into the Duke university school bookstore and buys a single T-shirt would not be treated in the media like a Duke student, even though he is a customer of D

I think I understand enough to see that your definition of the word "celebrity" roughly coincides with the word "elite" as I used it before. That's not how most people use the word "celebrity" but of course you are free to define the word any way you like, but it doesn't seem you actually disagree with my point, which is that a sexual assault accusation will get a lot of attention if the alleged perpetrator is coded as being part of the (white) elite.

An individual responded by saying this:

Celebrities get more attention than regular people? Shocker.

In this sarcastic remark, this individual seemed to be using the word "celebrity" in the normal sense, i.e. a person who is well known. But let's assume that the poster was using the broader, non-standard definition which you seem to prefer. In that case, the person seems to be saying that my point is obviously true. Ok, fine. Thanks for agreeing with me, although I don't think it's as obvious as you seem to think.

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