site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   18536 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.

And things keep habbening, Christian husband and father Pete Hegseth now threatens (or promises) to retrvn back to the Stone Age. Whether he means Paleolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic is left unspecified, and so is whether he means Iran, US or the whole world. "Stone Age" trending worldwide on Xitter right now.

Very very problematic thing to say for a member of church belonging to Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches!

From CREC Book of Memorials:

The doctrine of creation lies at the heart of Christian living, deeply embedded within our assumptions about worship, knowledge, faith, celebration, beauty, and redemption. In recent decades, many conservative evangelicals have been moved by the science of the day to oppose the historic view of creation in six sequential days of common length, several millennia in the past. Instead, they hold that the bare ideas of creation presented in Genesis have little to do with the actualities of creation. Falsely pitting poetry and symbolism against history, they distort the text of Scripture and divorce ideas from the created order in ancient Gnostic fashion.

Right now, we can be sure Mr Hegseth's pastor gives him very stern talking and calls him to repent and renounce satanic Darwinist lies unbecoming for true Biblical Christian.

And we all can continue monitoring the situation.

I don't suppose Adam and Eve left the Garden with a steel foundry or bronze weapons. There must have been some stone age. We're merely discussing particularly when it occurred.

Prior to Tubal-Cain.

Technically, the tale that Tubal-Cain was the first smith comes from tradition, the Biblical text does not say it.

I don't suppose Adam and Eve left the Garden with a steel foundry or bronze weapons.

Another famous traditional tale is that God created the first tongs for the first blacksmith, because you need tongs to make another tongs.

IRL, shipwrecked sailors on desert islands of old and modern bootstrapping hobbyists solved this by making the first tongs of hard wood soaked in water (large supply of them to replace as they burn off) and used them to fashion the first passable metal tongs.

Technically, the tale that Tubal-Cain was the first smith comes from tradition, the Biblical text does not say it.

Yes it does. Genesis 4 lists the descendants of Adam, and then 4:22 states

Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.

Yes, and the text does not say he was the first man ever who was doing the forging. Just that he was good enough at it to be notable.

The text also doesn't literally ever call Adam the "first" man. It has to be inferred from context that there were no men mentioned before him. To call it merely "tradition" that Adam was the first man and not something the Bible says, however, would be absolutely ridiculous. It is similarly ridiculous to say the Bible does not call Tubal-Cain the first metal worker.

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