site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25938 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 23, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is this you, baby? Back under a fake name? Because the whole aura of "why can't I, a 30 year old man, bang hot nubile sexy little Lolita 15 year olds without society tut-tutting at me" sounds awful familiar.

So far as I can find out, it's not "Belichick was denied because he was banging a chick 48 years younger than him for the past three years", it was "some kind of cheating scandal cooled the vote":

Multiple sources told ESPN that Spygate and Deflategate, the twin cheating scandals during the Patriots' championship run, came up in deliberations among voters. A voter who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Polian, an ardent Kraft supporter and former general manager of the Buffalo Bills and Indianapolis Colts -- a chief Patriots rival during their dynasty -- told some voters he believed Belichick should "wait a year" before induction as penance for Spygate, the 2007 cheating scandal that cost the team a first-round draft pick. Commissioner Roger Goodell also fined Belichick $500,000 and the Patriots $250,000.

"The only explanation [for the outcome] was the cheating stuff," a veteran Hall voter told ESPN on Tuesday. "It really bothered some of the guys."

  • -20

Because the whole aura of "why can't I, a 30 year old man, bang hot nubile sexy little Lolita 15 year olds without society tut-tutting at me" sounds awful familiar.

Wow, this really takes the blue ribbon for nasty strawmanning. Sadly, I am not a moderator so I cannot ban you for this. However I am no longer going to engage with you.

To quote an author of one of my favourite novels:

I don’t mind if you don’t like my manners. They’re pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings.

Oh, noes! Seems I can haz bin blocked, alas and alack I cannot indulge in intercourse with this person no more!

  • -10

Glad you got there first.

Bill is both probably the greatest football coach of all time, and the co-leader and spirit animal of a Patriots organization that was ontologically evil during the dynasty years. He got caught cheating twice, and there's no doubt in anyone's mind that there were other creative strategies that were never (publicly) found.

No one cares that he (was) banging a influencer, it was mostly just hilarious to see them together.

he believed Belichick should "wait a year" before induction as penance for Spygate, the 2007 cheating scandal that cost the team a first-round draft pick.

Shit man, he should be disqualified for that reason. You cheat, you don't get accolades. Very simple, or it should be very simple.

You (and @ArjinFerman):

  1. If you suspect someone of being an alt, report it to us (people frequently do this when pressing the report button). It is much more effective and less annoying. We'll take it under advisement, though we won't necessarily (and probably will not) tell you if we decide someone is a ban evader. People suspect other posters of being alts all the time. Usually they are wrong, sometimes they are right, but publicly calling someone out like this is not productive. It just causes drama, especially the way you do it, in such a taunting "neener-neener I see you" manner.

  2. Length of account history is not a guarantee of not being an alt. Many people create multiple sockpuppets, sometimes going back years, just to establish account history and have backups in case their primary shit-stirring alt gets banned. They frequently brag about this to us when they get banned, and think they are demonstrating their great cunning, because we've surely never anticipated such a genius move.

  3. @omw_68, while on thin ice for other reasons (mostly bad faith attacks on other posters), is probably not Mr. Underappreciated Naturally Whitely Superior Genius Ebophile. That guy is in the category of people who cannot hide their light under a bushel--they always reveal themselves quickly. Most of our repeat obsessives underestimate how difficult it is to hide their obsessions and their writing style even when they are trying to fly under the radar. At any given time, we're aware of a number of alts who think we haven't noticed them yet. Generally our policy is to let them have enough rope. Fact is, subject matter alone is rarely a decisive tell, and guys who want to complain about progressives and specifically why progressives are terrible for disapproving of age gap relationships and prioritizing female preference are... not exactly rare on the Motte.

  4. @HereAndGone2 was never permabanned and is not ban-evading. If she had been, she would not be allowed to still post (she is another one who could never keep a mask on for very long). She has flounced several times and come back under a new name, which we allow because she doesn't exactly try to hide it. That said, her past record doesn't get wiped clean with a new account. Please behave yourself, Daoiseach-of-the-many-names, I would also hate to see you leave forever, even though you keep blaming me for your departures.

Yes sir, right sir, sorry sir 😁

I did think it was rather curious that we'd get two guys in a row complaining about how unfairly society treats older men/younger women couples (which caused me to raise both eyebrows because dudes, that's been society forever, the only current modern complaints are (a) idiot online social media about how a small age gap is terrible grooming power imbalance and (b) the more common 'yeah man you're literally twice her age, that's not a good idea').

But I suppose it's entirely possible that Mr B was encouraged to tell his tale of woe after reading Mr A's posts on how 15 is totally old enough to be having babies.

No it’s a totally different person and this isn’t his hobby horse.

Okay. Just amused that when I looked it up, the teeny-weeny age gap between Mr. Belichick and his second squeeze after breaking up with his missus was a mere 48 years. Nothing at all, really. Why shouldn't a sprightly, virile, famous (presumably rich?) 71 year old man be attractive to a 23 year old woman? Just like Mrs Merton!

Is this you, baby? Back under a fake name?

  • You could at least check someone's profile, before making an accusation. He's been here for a while.
  • Aren't you on you third or fourth alt, that you set up specifically to get around a permaban?

She's never been permabanned. I seem to recall her saying she'd lost the password to her previous account, and she then turned down our offer to restore it.

It just seems awfully coincidental that a second person with the same bee in his bonnet over age gaps should pop out of nowhere.

Am I? How nice of you to keep track for me, I feel so seen, cherished, and valued that you spend precious time and energy on worrying about what I'm doing!

It just seems awfully coincidental that a second person with the same bee in his bonnet over age gaps should pop out of nowhere

Sure, in isolation that's a fair thing to base your, but when you can click his profile and see things like "joined 2022 September 08", and "452 comments" that should put the suspicion to rest.

Am I? How nice of you to keep track for me, I feel so seen, cherished, and valued that you spend precious time and energy on worrying about what I'm doing!

Oh, I can do better. I think you're an indispensable part of this forum's folklore, and I'm happy that you're still posting here. I'm just pointing out that someone's throwing stones in glass houses.

I tend not to click on profiles, unless I'm very infuriated and want to know what other stupid crap this stupid idiot who annoyed me has been spouting.

Also, I have a terrible memory so I really don't keep track of "this is A, who used to go by name B, who got banned back in year C, and then came back as new account D". I have enough to do to remember to set my alarm clock for the morning.

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