site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6366 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 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.

The primary argument by opponents to such a policy is that everyone who has the legal right to vote ought to have the option to have their vote counted, and this policy would place a burden on those who have the right but lack a government-issued ID for whatever reason. There are many other arguments surrounding this, but this is the core point that all their arguments come down to.

Yes, but if you can't prove you have the right to vote, then there's no reason to believe you have that right, and therefore there is no burden, since someone who is ineligible to vote is not being burdened in any way.

And if you can't prove that you have the right to vote, why should anyone believe you?

This is just weak apologia for lax voting, which favors the party importing millions of foreigners and putting them on welfare while signing them up to vote automatically when they give out IDs and driver's licenses.

the steelman would be something along the lines of "they CAN prove it (because they are a natural born citizen) but not necessarily within the required timeframe due to scheduling issues or other paperwork hangups"

I think the adoption rate of real ID is a decent stand in for approximating how many people have their birth certificate, original SSN card, and a tax return available at the ready.

And if you can't prove that you have the right to vote, why should anyone believe you?

when only 20% of the population in some states meets the bar for the new voting regulations, i think the onus falls back on the side that wants to disenfranchise over half of the census answering people.

I think the adoption rate of real ID is a decent stand in for approximating how many people have their birth certificate, original SSN card, and a tax return available at the ready.

Nah. Its people who have those things + 5 hours to waste at the DMV.

As of last week, New Jersey had the lowest compliance rate in the nation — just 17% of its state-issued IDs are Real IDs.

I assure you that Newark Airport is neither empty, devoid of New Jersey residents, nor full of people paying the TSA no-real-ID fee. This is just because New Jersey's process for getting a Real ID sucks so much and New Jersey residents who travel by air likely have a Federal Real ID (a passport, a Global Entry card or a passport card works).

i think the onus falls back on the side that wants to disenfranchise over half of the census answering people.

You're deliberately conflating "census answering people" with "eligible voters" or even "citizens" when you're on the side that fought and won to keep that question off the last census.

What percentage of census answering people deserve to be disenfranchised? It's sure more than zero.

The big obstacle with Real ID is getting an appointment in the first place. Every time I hear about it, the waitlist is months long.

My state offers walk-ins, did it first thing at opening a few months ago. Was waiting for six hours.

Wow, that’s… insane. I thought my red state ran the DMV poorly but here you can walk in to an office and get a temporary ID document same-day, and a card in the mail within a month. You might have to wait an hour for everything, but you’ll get it done. Appointments for the DMV aren’t even a concept, lol.

And the only difference between a standard state ID and a real ID is you need ONE MORE piece of mail sent to your address. When I realized that was the difference I laughed at how much of a political fight it was for and against it.

If that’s the reality for a lot of the country, then no wonder voter id is controversial. Y’all need to fix the DMV before anyone talks about voter ID.

Y’all need to fix the DMV before anyone talks about voter ID.

I believe this is known as the Moldbug Speedrun.

Blue state blues. On the plus side, I've been renewing my old-style license online and having it mailed to me since the Obama administration.

Wait till you see North Carolina, where you can't even get on a wait-list or an appointment to begin with in most areas. It's been like this since at least late 2024/early 2025, I had to check the site early morning every day just to get an appointment four months out in an awful early morning time slot.

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