site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   26910 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.

Pretty rare to go see a movie because of a producer.

I would argue that the company which produces and/or distributes a movie acts as a sort of seal of approval: if a movie is preceded by the 20th Century Fox intro, people hold it to a higher standard than some video uploaded to YouTube. Many movies are in fact advertised based on who the production company and/or producer was, and quite a few were commercially successful:

  • King Arthur was advertised as "From Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean" and made $200 million on a $120 million budget.
  • The Darkest Minds was advertised as being "from the producers of Stranger Things and Arrival" and made $40 million on a $35 million budget.
  • Violent Night was advertised as "from the producer of Nobody and Bullet Train" and made $76 million on a $20 million budget.
  • Barbarian was advertised as "From a producer of It and the executive producer of The Grudge and The Ring" and made its money back ten times over.
  • M3GAN was advertised as "From James Wan, producer of Annabelle, and Blumhouse, producer of The Black Phone" and made its money back fifteen times over.

And those examples are just "from the producer of": I didn't even touch on "from the studio that brought you".

I'm not claiming that people went to see these movies purely on the basis of the producer's name recognition, or because the producer had previously produced a film they enjoyed. Obviously the usual traits that make a movie a commercial success count too: star power, a compelling hook, a memorable trailer, good reviews, positive word of mouth, star power (although I think it's telling that quite a few of those movies had no memorable stars and directors I'd never heard of). But I think you're understating the extent to which attaching the names of an established producer and production company to a film can help to get bums in seats.

I don’t think it’s the production per se but the association with some other property (eg Pirates of the Caribbean) that works.

I mean, yes. At the same time, the intros for 20th Century Fox, Universal, Columbia and Paramount are memorable in their own right, and people recognise them independently of any specific movie to which they are attached. If I start humming the 20th Century Fox fanfare (doo, doo-doo, dee-doo-dee-doo-dee doo, doo-doo...), I would expect most people in my vicinity to recognise it and be able to finish the melody. 20th Century Fox (among other film production companies) is a successful exercise in establishing a recognisable brand identity.

Asserting that people only go to see movies because of association with other movies/properties, and that the specific production and distribution company doesn't matter at all – well, is this how we talk about any other kind of commercial endeavour? If someone buys an iPhone and they've never owned an iPhone before, which of these more accurately describes their thought process before doing so?

  1. They developed a positive impression of iMacs, iPads, iPods completely independent of one another, and are buying an iPhone because it's "from the people who brought you iMacs, iPads, iPods", even though they couldn't name the specific company who made them.
  2. They have positive associations with Apple the company: the apple-with-a-bite-in-it logo (and its associated fonts, colour scheme etc.) essentially acts as a sort of seal of approval for any attached product.

Obviously buying a movie ticket isn't the same thing as buying a phone or a car: we put more stock in a "seal of quality" for expensive purchases than cheap ones, and I couldn't begin to tell you which production company produced some of my favourite movies. But in spite of that, when I see the 20th Century Fox intro before a movie, I expect a higher standard of quality and professionalism than I do when clicking on a YouTube video at random (in the same way that even a person who has never owned an Apple product before expects a higher standard of quality from an Apple product than the knockoff equivalent from Temu). The production and distribution companies responsible for a movie convey a nonzero amount of information to the consumer, audiences do not simply zone out before the opening credits start, and certain production and distribution companies have more cachet and status than others. A screenwriter who announced "I sold a script to 20th Century Fox" would attract more impressed looks than "I sold a script to Blumhouse", even if he sold it for the same sum.

Sure. I don’t even disagree but people recognize 20th century Fox because of the branding + its wealth of films. That doesn’t imply people would recognize a producer behind it.

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