site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25750 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.

The FBI director being a fanboy is cringe, but that's all.

Trump's joke was barely worth a sensible chuckle, but there's one constant in all waves of feminism, which is that the feminism light bulb joke makes sense:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!

Anyway, the men's hockey team will still be up to their ears in "female attention" should they want it, the bitching of sportswriters notwithstanding.

Trump's joke was barely worth a sensible chuckle, but there's one constant in all waves of feminism, which is that the feminism light bulb joke makes sense:

I agree, but there's a certain irony in feminists getting offended by a joke where the point of the joke is that feminists are easily offended. I guess they would have a point if the joke were mean-spirited, but it clearly is not.

but there's a certain irony in feminists getting offended by a joke where the point of the joke is that feminists are easily offended.

I disagree. It's kind of straightforwardly expected that someone would get offended at a joke that makes fun of them. It's a really frustrating Catch-22 attitude I see all the time:

"Men just want to uphold the patriarchy, and if you disagree it just shows how much you uphold the patriarchy!" "White people are so fragile! You don't think so? Aw, did that hurt your feelings wittle fragile white man?" "Women are so lame, amirite? Oh you're offended? See, I was right!"

It's kind of straightforwardly expected that someone would get offended at a joke that makes fun of them.

I would have to disagree with this. If the joke is (1) at least slightly funny; and (2) not mean-spirited, then it's pretty normal NOT to get offended.

I'm thinking this might be true only among men.

The FBI director being a fanboy is cringe, but that's all.

I actually forgive him, because he's been a player and a coach, so this wasn't him just throwing himself in for the photo op itself.

The FBI director being a fanboy is cringe, but that's all.

I don't even know see it's cringe, honestly.

Depends on if he was there on thr government's dime while pretending to work. Which, granted, is kind of the American Dream, but you're supposed to pretend to be kind of discreet about it with something resembling a fig leaf of plausible deniability.

At least when submitting your expense report.

To be fair, he wouldn't be the first government official trying to piggy-back off a winning team's popularity.

He claimed he was there to meet with Italian police about security in advance of the 2028 games in Los Angeles. That would seem plausible if the guy wasn't already under criticism for having a suspicious number of "business trips" to cities that just so happen to be holding events he wants to attend. The meeting was the day prior and lasted less than an hour. Meanwhile, he attended two hockey games while he was there from Friday night to Sunday night and attended two hockey games, plus a couple other "official" events that were basically just 20 minute photo ops. I can assure you that if, at any of the firms I've worked for, I used an hour-long meeting as a justification to put plane tickets and hotel rooms on the company credit card in cities where the Penguins happened to be playing away games that I attended, I would, at the very least, get a stern talking to, assuming they didn't fire me on the spot.

Who cares if it is plausible? It's the Olympics, men like sports, powerful people need time off too. He's the director of the FBI, the last few guys were spying on Senators and Presidents, for comparison.

I can assure you that if, at any of the firms I've worked for, I used an hour-long meeting as a justification to put plane tickets and hotel rooms on the company credit card in cities where the Penguins happened to be playing away games that I attended, I would, at the very least, get a stern talking to, assuming they didn't fire me on the spot.

That's fair yeah that's a very common corporate norm yeah. But there's also an entire world of high-powered corporate big swinging-dicks where rewarding yourself with big dinners and work trips is just a perk of the work.

That would seem plausible if the guy wasn't already under criticism for having a suspicious number of "business trips" to cities that just so happen to be holding events he wants to attend.

Politician and junkets? I am shocked, shocked I tell you! Let me tell you about Irish politicians and Cheltenham. Half of them head over for the racing and sometimes you'd hope they'd stay gone.

He says he was invited by a friend on the team, which I believe. I think it's about the same as Obama meeting team USA basketball in the locker room. The difference that I can see is that all of the media doesn't hate Obama with the fury of a thousand suns.

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