site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7485 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 30, 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.

I would be okay with us passing a law that prevented discrimination on the basis of political ideology (some jurisdictions in the US already have such laws.) I might even be convinced that individual states passing laws to ensure more viewpoint diversity in state colleges could be a good thing.

But a single individual unilaterally twisting an existing law in order to interfere with hiring and firing decisions of a university in a way that interferes with the basic educational mission of that university is a bridge too far for me. I think universities need to change, but it should be done through gradual reforms or a new march through the institutions, not imposed all at once in a top down way for a variety of reasons.

Wasn't the dear colleagues letter exactly that?

I too would prefer congress establish those limits, but I believe the only way to get there is to have someone make so many intolerable policies following that, that the side that started this with that letter is sickened enough to not want to touch that rail again.

What's wrong with that? Having more conservative intellectuals at the highest level is, if anything, good for national stability- democracies with weak conservative wings deteriorate very fast, much faster than overwhelmingly conservative democracies(Japan etc).

But a single individual unilaterally twisting an existing law in order to interfere with hiring and firing decisions of a university in a way that interferes with the basic educational mission of that university is a bridge too far for me

Is it? Isn't there some conservative college, who's name escapes me, that makes a point of not accepting any federal help so they aren't on the hook for Title IX, and all the other federal fuckery, and the Dems are still always looking for ways to force them to run it their way? Why is it so beyond the pale to put conditions on a university that does get federal money, then?

You're thinking of Hillsdale College.

That's the one! Was at the tip of my tongue, thanks!

Isn't there some conservative college, who's name escapes me, that makes a point of not accepting any federal help so they aren't on the hook for Title IX, and all the other federal fuckery, and the Dems are still always looking for ways to force them to run it their way?

There was, Bob Jones University. They lost not just Federal funds but their tax-exempt status, and then knelt at the altar of equality.

Meanwhile, the University of California and others have explicit political tests for their faculty (in some cases also being fig-leaves for RACIAL tests), and that's fine. It's all who/whom and all very tiresome, and if Trump refuses to let them continue doing that he's not breaking any precedent except in aiming that power at the left for a change.

Why is it so beyond the pale to put conditions on a university that does get federal money, then?

I'm happy for federal money to come with strings attached. But within our system, I would prefer if the strings came from Congress and not from a unilateral action from the president.

It was wrong when Obama tried to do it with the Dear Colleague letter, and it is wrong when Trump tries to do it with the Harvard letter.

In many ways, I would prefer the federal government to stop funding universities altogether, so they couldn't use the withdrawal of funds as a threat against them. But in the context where the funding exists, I do think it should be handled in a way consistent with the principles of our constitutional republic as far as possible.

It was wrong when Obama tried to do it with the Dear Colleague letter, and it is wrong when Trump tried to do it with the Harvard letter.

The problem is that Obama didn't just try, he actually did it, so it's just a normal part of business now, even if you or I are against it in principle.

No offense, but this seems completely unworkable to me. The universities are already simply ignoring existing laws when it suits them, they'll just ignore those, too. They might at most need to find a paper-thin excuse that will allow already sympathetic judges/lawyers to sign it off, but I'm not sure even that is necessary.

A new march is impossible, since the old one was only possible thanks to the conservative old guard allowing it. Which is also the reason they lost to the trumpist new right.

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