site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11082 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Have Americans lost the ability to envision a positive future for their own country? You lead the most powerful and one of the greatest nations ever to exist on this planet. You proudly proclaim your democratic traditions and the spirit of freedom - yet this? Reflexively choosing between the lesser of two evils, unable to craft a positive vision or imagine a way forward, opting to be maximally cynical and completely unconstructive. What the hell is wrong? Seriously what is wrong?

Have Americans lost the ability to envision a positive future for their own country?

Is there any "Western" country, other than maybe Denmark, that can envision a positive future for their own country?

What the hell is wrong? Seriously what is wrong?

The Mayans were right and the world ended in 2012, we're just playing out the consequences. And Fukuyama, and Toynbee, and Nietzsche...

Slightly more seriously, unconstructive cynicism is easy and not too painful. To envision a positive future without an ability to influence it is painful.

This is the consequence of the Great Awokening. Welcome to the current year.

Hmm. I think it started long before that. Bush winning instead of Gore, 9/11 and the overreaction to it, mass surveillance, Iraq, GFC and not punishing the banksters, then the awokening to keep the plebs divided.

Al "The Day After Tommorrow" Gore had a more positive view of the nation's future than Bush? I.... don't think so.

Was this meant to be in reply to something else? I can't quite see how this fits the above post.

Not seeing the utility in having just enough bureaucratic red tape to ensure swift and lethal force delivery while actually saving a few lives (Iranian lives, a people with an actual civilization, which should have some extra utility), and then lowkey saying “I voted for this” when tragedy strikes. That in my book is being unable to have a positive vision.

You're assuming the red tape was actually both effective and reasonably targeted, which may be true, but you can't just assume that the department of sunshine and rainbows actually produces sunshine and rainbows free of any adverse consequences. Generally speaking, removing bureaucratic red tape makes the government smaller and the people more free, which is practically the most positive of positive visions I can imagine.

I am not sure how you got from “I am glad that bureaucratic bloat has been reduced” to “Americans cannot envisage a positive future”.

"I voted for this" in response to what just a moment ago would have been almost universally agreed upon as barbaric (state agents killing unarmed Americans in the street regardless of reason, et al), broadly gestures towards a rising nihilism, doesn't it?

"I voted for this" refers to the bureaucratic cuts, not the school bombing itself. Callous? Yes. Nihilistic? No.

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