site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14144 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay but why would anyone actually want to live on Mars? You basically have to live inside 24/7 in quarters that are probably quite similar to a submarine, with crazy rules and regulations to make sure nothing goes wrong. It's just not very appealing to the vast majority of people, and with the demographic crisis on earth, it really doesn't seem like something many people are going to volunteer for.

And yet people voluntarily sign up to live on submarines for stretches at a time, under military rules and discipline, and with the knowledge that other people may try to deliberately kill them. I think you are engaging in far too much typical-mind fallacy.

I also think that you would only need a relatively small cadre of pioneers to establish the core infrastructure that would enable building out more comfortable living for larger numbers of people. Submarines are unusually cramped due to the tremendous forces needed to protect the low-pressure space. Using cut-and-cover construction, building larger-volume spaces is fairly straightforward (and structurally easier than on Earth due to the lower gravity).

And yet people voluntarily sign up to live on submarines for stretches at a time, under miliary rules and discipline, and with the knowledge that other people may try to deliberately kill them. I think you are engaging in far too much typical-mind fallacy.

Plus the history of maritime exploration. Original efforts at making it to Asia/America/whatever came with significantly higher chances of horrible death than a well-funded Mars mission

The conditions you describe are most applicable to the very early colonies. There are enough people with a risk-appetite large enough to consider the journey, especially if they're getting paid.

Funny store. My first interaction with Scott involved him responding to an essay of mine, our exchange evolving with him then encouraging me to consider rather longterm dreams I had like becoming a psychiatrist on a Mars mission. I'd take that up for a few years, especially if I was getting paid big bucks. A mere million USD would convince me to take the risk and tolerate the inconvenience.

The first colonies will probably live In grounded Starships converted into habitats, or in relatively small colonies covered by regolith. But once ISRU is running (and there are many ways to get easy concrete substitutes on Mars), there are few limits on how big and luxurious habs can be. You could have pretty large houses or apartments in hab blocks, as long as you keep the whole thing sealed, which was the plan anyway.

Even the journey wouldn't be so bad with a Starship. The modeled crew quarters would put earlier missions to shame.

Do I particularly want to go to Mars? Not really, though I think it's kinda cool. I'd be much quicker to sign up for NEO stuff, because of all the convenience that entails. But there are enough people who can be swayed when there's 8 billion people to draw from. People sign up for 6 month stays in Antarctica after all.

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