site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   28026 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.

Whether, as a result of the difference in identified gender, you do anything to them that they don't want. (E. g. the matter of Carlita Rodríguez.)

That doesn't answer my question. I assume you mean that "discriminating against" someone on the basis of their claimed gender identity means doing something to them that they don't want. (I note that this isn't what the word "discriminate" literally means, but let's park that for now.) What does it mean to "draw a social distinction" between two people on the basis of their gender identities?

(Incidentally I have never seen that film so I have no idea what happened to Rodriguez on the basis of their claimed gender identity.)

(Incidentally I have never seen that film so I have no idea what happened to Rodriguez on the basis of their claimed gender identity.)

The adminisphere at the coal mine where she was employed accepted that Sra Rodríguez was a woman, but insisted that, as a woman, she be excluded from 'men's work'.

What does it mean to "draw a social distinction" between two people on the basis of their gender identities?

(Note that because I do not personally experience gender identity, corresponding or opposed to my anatomy at birth, I can only rely on the lived experience of people who do have strongly felt gender identities, many of which point in the same direction as their intercruoral organs, as communicated through the not-entirely-lossless channel of human language.)

  • One person's 'social distinction' can be another's 'discrimination', based on the fact that the second person asked you to stop and you didn't.
  • There are some things to which almost all people would object, e. g. being paid a lower salary, and therefore constitute discrimination a priori.
  • Some early trans advocates did not consider the possibility that certain arbitrarily-gendered things (e. g. clothing, occupations) did not need to be divided between men and women, and thus sought to move the boundary from 'genitals at birth' to 'self-identification' because they had no more awareness of the possibility of dissolving the boundary altogether than a fish has of water.
  • The 'gender abolitionist' position is not entirely one which I would consider beyond the pale, provided that:
  1. biological sex is considered a private, rather than a public, matter¹, and
  2. dysphoric individuals have the option of altering their bodies to approach, to the greatest degree possible given current medical knowledge, the other biological sex.

In society as it stands now, some 'social distinctions' which would rarely, if ever, constitute 'discrimination', would include

  • pronouns
  • titles and forms of address
  • seating at formal events whose host follows the old etiquette-guides which recommend alternating men and women
  • workplace team-building exercises in which, there being an approximately equal number of men and women, manglement decides to divide by gender

¹cf. the dwarven society in Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels. (GNU Terry Pratchett)

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