site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   26591 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Reads to me as even more slop infused than your own forays, which as you know I think are counter to the current official stance on LLM-posting -- my question as usual is: if bot-posts are officially not allowed, but nobody is ever willing to do anything about it, in what sense are they not allowed?

(I'm aware that you personally think that they should be allowed, but AFAIK this is not in fact the position of the mod-team as a whole; the law of the land so to speak?)

The official position is that AI usage is allowed, but cannot constitute the substance of one’s comment. If it wouldn’t pass the “low effort” rules without the AI additions, we’re probably going to mod it.

@self_made_human has modded accordingly.

Unfortunately, our best examples of what isn’t allowed tend to stop at the new user filter. You’d be surprised how many psycho-political manifestos we get from first-time posters.

The official position is that AI usage is allowed, but cannot constitute the substance of one’s comment. If it wouldn’t pass the “low effort” rules without the AI additions, we’re probably going to mod it.

An actual, obvious slippery slope. Poor rulemaking imo.

What would you recommend?

I would go for what should at least have some chance of keeping the human text production factor high on this site. Prohibit AI for text production - on the honor code, same as with other rules for good conduct. Some AI help with idea creation is ok.

Then there is no rule at all -- and the slop-lovers among us will continue to push the line until the forum is largely bots arguing with each other.

Bad way to go.

but cannot constitute the substance of one’s comment. If it wouldn’t pass the “low effort” rules without the AI additions, we’re probably going to mod it.

Figuring out where the line is here is a fun and impossible task. I like the "if it would be considered low effort if you removed the AI text" rule, but then if a comment has AI writing sufficiently integrated into it throughout, I guess that means it is just invalid period? But at the same time, a sufficiently integrated comment would either read as 100% AI or its edited well enough that no one would know. I love thinking about this.

Unfortunately, our best examples of what isn’t allowed tend to stop at the new user filter. You’d be surprised how many psycho-political manifestos we get from first-time posters.

I know you can't encourage them, but I'm sad we don't get to see these. Now that I don't use 4chan anymore my exposure to skitzo-slop is too low. I miss stuff like the The Philmarilion and the rock guy.

My understanding of current consensus is that entirely or majority LLM written posts are banned.

The problem is that there is no consensus beyond that. If we had a rule, informal or not, that a suspected X% of AI is the cutoff for action, I would enforce that, even if I think that the acceptable value of X is larger than most.

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