site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   24767 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.

It strikes me as an example of "Every accusation is a confession."

I really doubt that everyone who accused Obama of having a faked birth certificate was secretly worried about their own birthplace.

I don't think that phrase is meant to be taken so literally, even if it's phrased as an absolute. It especially breaks down in very granular, binary political contexts... but then I'm the guy who harps on the point that political hypocrisy is almost always mirrored.

But please allow me to rephrase more carefully, and in my own words: If a person claims that there is no objective or knowable truth, that is Bayesian evidence that the speaker is a liar. If a person claims that all the bad stories about them are false narratives made up to persecute them, that is Bayesian evidence that the stories are true. If a person tells you that, really, everyone is a bad person, then that is Bayesian evidence that the speaker is a bad person. And if a person tells you that there is no "truth", only competing power narratives, then you need to start acting like you are in a power struggle because you are.

"Bayseian evidence" doesn't imply "enough evidence that it makes a practical difference" so that's technically true but useless. Otherwise, I can think of situations where it doesn't make a practical difference. Every narrative of the evil of Jews as a race is a false narrative made up to persecute them.

"Bayseian evidence" doesn't imply "enough evidence that it makes a practical difference"

My friend, set aside the politics and philosophy for a moment. In the real world, in your real life, if you meet someone who always seems to have an excuse for why everyone dislikes them for bad, unfair reasons, STAY AWAY. The reason appearances can be deceiving is because they are usually not. If your first encounter with someone matches that pattern, sure, maybe it's an unfair fluke (but probably not). If three out of the first four encounters match that pattern, you should accept that that person is a walking disaster, and engage at your own peril.

"Oh, yeah, I have to go to court tomorrow. No, no, it's a crazy story, my ex-landlord is a total psycho."

9 times out of ten, that's actually exactly what it looks like and the person speaking is meaningfully guilty and the kind of person who does crimes and constantly lies.

If you recommend seeking legal redress for their purported "crazy" persecution and they waffle and deflect, increase that certainty to 100%.

And certainly all the people complaining about hospice and daycare fraud aren't running their own fraudulent hospices and daycares.

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