site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   25284 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.

Years of being talked down to by someone who was smugly wrong has done a lot of damage.

For me, this touches on a big issue. I strongly suspect that the people who are pushing wind and solar are the same people who are wrong about George Zimmerman, Kyle Rittenhouse, Duke Lacrosse, Global Warming, gender ideology, HBD, third-world immigration, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, and probably a bunch of other stuff I can't think of at the moment.

What all these things have in common is that they are a magnet for people who are far more interested in following what's fashionable, i.e. virtue-signalling, than anything else.

This is interesting to me, because one of those is just a plain brute fact that is true, that can't be argued with, and yet you choose to deny it and package it up with all the other culture war shibboleths that are part of the culture.

I wonder to what extent everything someone believes is received from the air their breath with no reference to how the world actually is? Is it the same for every population, or do some groups actually have more of a connection to cause and effect?

It's global warming by the way. There is room for debate on some other yes/no propositions you have up there interspersed with the axiomatic statements, but that one is just a thing that is real, but some people don't want to be real so they close their eyes to it/believe the grifters and woowoo peddlers instead.

It's global warming by the way. There is room for debate on some other yes/no propositions you have up there interspersed with the axiomatic statements, but that one is just a thing that is real

Well when you assert that "global warming" is "real" and a "plain brute fact" what exactly do you mean by "global warming"?

That average temperatures across the globe taken over the course of year X, are higher than x-1, and x+1 will be higher than x.

Eg, the globe is warming.

Less snarkily, that the models popularised over the last 50 years or so have been mostly correct, and all show a warming trend. That is the thing that is a plain brute fact that can't be denied: that climatologists in the 70's said "Hey, it looks like it's getting hotter" and then it did.

That average temperatures across the globe taken over the course of year X, are higher than x-1, and x+1 will be higher than x.

Well, this one's just not true; e.g. 2021 was cooler than 2020. Even x to x+10 failed for 1998 vs 2008. I'm not sure if we'll ever see a decadal drop again without some major change, but the trend is still only something like 0.025C/year, and year-to-year variation of ~0.1C still regularly swamps that.

Less snarkily, that the models popularised over the last 50 years or so have been mostly correct, and all show a warming trend.

Remove "popularised" and this one's true. But the way we (well, the news media and the most salacious academics) popularize a model is to take whatever the most extreme possibility is at one p<0.01 end of the predictions, turn that into a "it will never snow in Britain again!!" headline, and so convert tomorrow's credibility into today's paycheck. Current measured warming since 1990 is pretty much right on the "Business-as-Usual"+"Best Estimate" line from the 1990 IPCC report, which puts it way above the "weather just changes, it'll probably revert to the mean again" null hypothesis, but "we're up nearly 1C and it's still accelerating" feels anticlimactic to people who vaguely think they remember that coastal cities were supposed to be flooding or something by now.

The models are not mostly correct. The IPCC report includes out a whole bunch of estimates... which have on some occasions ALL been high, but just the fact that there are a lot of them suggests chicanery. Unless the same model consistently hits, which is not the case.

That average temperatures across the globe taken over the course of year X, are higher than x-1, and x+1 will be higher than x.

Eg, the globe is warming.

This is what I would call "motte global warming." And yes, there is little room to doubt that motte global warming is "real" and a "plain brute fact."

But when I said that a certain group of people was wrong about global warming, that's not what I meant. Because they push what could be called "bailey global warming." The idea that (1) if unchecked, mankind's CO2 emissions will cause significant warming; AND (2) that warming will be magnified by water vapor feedback; AND (3) that this magnified warming will have a devastating impact on the climate, i.e. it will cause major harm.

To be sure, when these people are on the defensive, they do what all motte & bailey types do: They pivot to the motte. "It's indisputable that global surface temperatures have risen measurably over the last 100 years" or "basic mathematical calculations show that an increase in CO2 levels will lead to measurable increases in global surface temperatures" All true, but later they pivot to the bailey: "We must substantially reduce CO2 emissions or else there will be a disaster!!"

Less snarkily, that the models popularised over the last 50 years or so have been mostly correct, and all show a warming trend.

I can't really comment on this since I don't know what specific models you are referring to. That being said, I would challenge you to find a prominent climate model which (1) made bona fide predictions which were interesting, correct, and were actual (i.e. not retroactive) predictions; and (2) also predicts dangerous warming for the Earth.

There is no bailey, it’s all motte. There’s an extremely strong scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to global warming and there’s no credible alternative explanation for the rise in temperature. The only thing that tracks the rapid temperature rise is human causes.

There is no bailey, it’s all motte. There’s an extremely strong scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to global warming and there’s no credible alternative explanation for the rise in temperature. The only thing that tracks the rapid temperature rise is human causes.

Let's cut to the chase:

  1. Please summarize the evidence that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions, if unchecked, will lead to DANGEROUS warming, i.e. warming sufficient to cause substantial harm to human life and property.

  2. Do you believe that this position represents scientific consensus?

  3. If, so what's your evidence that this position represents scientific consensus?

This seems to paint a good summary but I’m not an expert in the subject.

Your position is that climate change is happening, but that it’s not caused by humans and not a cause for concern? What lead you to this belief?

Especially the latter one. Natural rapid global warming, whatever the cause, still leads to rising sea levels, flooding of coastal areas, warming of the oceans, extreme weather events (hurricanes, droughts, etc. which can be devastating especially to less prosperous nations).

And do you think greenhouse gases don’t influence the climate at all, or that we’re not emitting enough to cause an impact?

This seems to paint a good summary but I’m not an expert in the subject.

That's a 31 page single spaced document. I'm not going to go searching through it to find answers to simple questions I asked you. I take it that

(1) you are unable to summarize the best evidence that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions, if unchecked, will lead to DANGEROUS warming, i.e. warming sufficient to cause substantial harm to human life and property. For ease of reference, I will refer to this claim as "CAGW."

(2) You don't know whether or not CAGW represents scientific consensus.

Is that correct?

Your position is that climate change is happening, but that it’s not caused by humans and not a cause for concern? What lead you to this belief?

Not exactly. I believe that (1) climate change is happening (as has happened for millions of years); (2) human activities are contributing to some extent; and (3) the effects from the human contributions are very unlikely to be cause for concern.

What led me to these beliefs is -- basically -- that I have studied the issues very carefully and discovered that (1) the argument that man's activities are primarily responsible for recent climate changes does not stand up to scrutiny; and (2) the argument for CAGW does not stand up to scrutiny.

And do you think greenhouse gases don’t influence the climate at all, or that we’re not emitting enough to cause an impact?

By "greenhouse gases" can I assume you mean "greenhouse gases which are the result of man's activity"?

Anyway, I've answered your questions as best I can. You've claimed "it's all motte." I assumed this meant you personally believe (and can offer justification for your belief) in CAGW. Did I misunderstand you?

  1. Do you believe in CAGW?

  2. Do you believe in CAGW because you independently understand the evidence and argument for CAGW, or do you believe simply because you heard it from someone else?

More comments

Scientific consensus? Nah, solid 19th century math and physics.

If you doubt it, you can at home repeat the experiments and redo the calculations of Joseph Fourier , Eunice Newton Foote, John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius.

Or you can go reject all of it, spit at life work of the finest European scientists and go full flat earther, your life your choice.

None of this matter at this time, the train is not stopping, it is going straigth to Paleocene and speeding up. Get on higher ground and enjoy the ride.

Scientific consensus? Nah, solid 19th century math and physics.

According to "solid 19th century math and physics," how much warming can one expect as a result of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions?

How can you be “wrong” about gay marriage? You can be for or against gay marriage, but it’s not a fact that you can be empirically right or wrong about, unlike global warming.

You’re committing the exact same sin of picking your worldview based on what’s fashionable to the red tribe. Why can’t you accept global warming and HBD at the same time? Be against third world immigration and for trans rights?

How can you be “wrong” about gay marriage? You can be for or against gay marriage, but it’s not a fact that you can be empirically right or wrong about, unlike global warming.

Briefly, gay marriage is a policy. Proposed policies have predicted positive and negative consequences, and supporters of proposed policies are staking a position that the positive consequences will outweigh the negative consequences. People are wrong on a policy if, when the policy is enacted, their prediction is falsified because the positive effects end up being outweighed by the negative effects. You can be empirically right or wrong about the consequences of a policy, including gay marriage.

How can you be “wrong” about gay marriage?

That's a good question, because yeah, it's largely a question of values. To me, it's somewhat clear -- but not indisputably clear -- that the costs of gay marriage significantly outweigh the benefits. That being said, if the people supporting wind and solar were supporting gay marriage but none of the other nonsense, I would be less skeptical.

Because that alienates my potential allies and prevents me from forming strong in-group bonds, which is what all humans aspire to accomplish?

This mindset is what put us in this mess in the first place. Do you not think perhaps many on the other side are the same?

Personally, I believe rightwing populist movement started off with valid grievances. But this mentality of refusing to contradict your allies empowers extremists, grifters and manipulative sociopaths that distort your movement, make you deny reality more and more, until one day you’re fighting in the service of a monster that bears no resemblance to your original beliefs.

To me this is what’s happening to the right in America and the West in general. There is no rightwing ideology anymore. The “leaders” of the movement are abandoning all of its core principles and the only thing you’re left with is vibes, bonding with your allies in saying more and more grotesque untruths, and needing to beat the “other side” at all costs.

This mindset is what put us in this mess in the first place. Do you not think perhaps many on the other side are the same?

Of course I think that. I even said so! See:

which is what all humans aspire to accomplish?

Although I admit it isn't rare to see dehumanization of political opponents, so I guess I wasn't explicit enough.

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