site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   17145 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 6, 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 fixed your question for you. And the answer is simple: You bear the burden of proof, not me.

If you're not even willing to go read the primary source on the topic, what "burden of proof" can even be fulfilled there? You can't just go "nuh uh, I'm not gonna read it" to discount everything.

I'm a little confused. Are you claiming that LettersfromLeo supplies the chain that I originally requested?

I'll give you the information I have on his verification right at the top of the article, that you seem to have not bothered reading even a little of.

UPDATE at 4:33 PM EDT: Letters from Leo can now independently confirm The Free Press report that the meeting took place — and that some Vatican officials were so alarmed by the Pentagon’s tactics that they shelved plans for Pope Leo XIV to visit the United States later this year.

Other officials in the Vatican saw the Pentagon’s reference to an Avignon papacy as a threat to use military force against the Holy See.

Yes, he doesn't provide what sources he used here, I never said he did. What I am saying however is that if you want to know more about what they are basing it off of beyond what their respective articles include, you can go ask them. I am not a part of The Free Press and I don't have any relation to Christopher Hale of LFL, I do not have any non public info as to who or what their sources are. In fact I have less than that given I do not desire to scour all their social media pages to see if they've revealed anything there.

Anyway, do you admit that from the outset, I requested the ENTIRE CHAIN?

You started with the chain for Christopher Hale, and then switched to the chain for Ferraresi. Issue is, they are independently verified from each other, they are not the same chain to begin with, something you would know if you had clicked on the link and read the very first paragraph!

If you're not even willing to go read the primary source on the topic

Umm, here's what you said:

but I'll leave that to you to scour their social media if you want to know.

It's hard to see this as anything other than an intentional misrepresentation on your part.

You started with the chain for Christopher Hale, and then switched to the chain for Ferrares

Nonsense, I asked for the ENTIRE CHAIN from the very beginning. If you disagree, please QUOTE me. Failing that, please apologize for having misrepresented my position.

If you're not even willing to go read the primary source on the topic

Yes that was about the parts where you clearly didn't read the primary source and messed up basic details. When you asked "What's the source of this story? I mean, who are the links in the chain between Christopher Hale (the blogger you link to)", you messed up that the original reporting (TFP) and LFL (Hale) are in different chains to begin with, and that you did even not read the first paragraph of LFL with the edit (and yes, it was already there when I posted the article). The original source of this story is The Free Press reporters sources, unlucky for you if you hadn't tried to clarify it as "I mean between Christopher Hale" you wouldn't have exposed that lack of knowledge.

but I'll leave that to you to scour their social media if you want to know.

Yes that was me following up that I'm not aware of who their specific sources are (as they're not in the articles) and maybe you can find them on social media or by emailing them. I doubt it, journalists typically keep anonymous sources anonymous (or else no one would ever leak to them) but you can give it a shot.

Yes that was me following up that I'm not aware of who their specific sources are (as they're not in the articles) and maybe you can find them on social media or by emailing them.

Nope, that's not how it went. The exchange was as follows:

You:

Perhaps Ferraresi and the rest of the TFP team have shared more details elsewhere, but I'll leave that to you to scour their social media if you want to know.

My response:

I've had enough experience with TDS that I'm not going to bother. The chances that it will lead to anything other than vague "sources" are just too low.

Your response:

Well thank you for admitting that you failed to do the bare minimum of knowledge seeking and not read the original article or this. Of course you don't know if you actively chose not to.

What's the point of a discussion if "I won't read" is the starting point?

Your accusation of my not being willing to read and of failing to do the bare minimum was clearly in response to my post declining to "scour" "social media"

In short, you are misrepresenting our exchange. Moreover, when I pointed it out, instead of apologizing you doubled down.

Not only that, I clearly requested the ENTIRE CHAIN from the very beginning. In other words I didn't "switch" as you falsely claimed. I gave you the opportunity to either back up your claim or apologize, and you simply ignored me.

In any event, I'm not interested in engaging with someone who intentionally misrepresents my position.

This exchange is concluded. Please feel free to have the last word -- I will not be reading or responding.

(Side note for any lurkers: I have screen-shotted the entire exchange so that @magicalkittycat will be discouraged from making strategic edits after the fact. If it seems like I am misrepresenting things myself, feel free to message me privately.)

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