site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   15084 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not once have I seen from you an argument that a fetus isn’t a human being in any way wouldn’t be difficult for you. I said as much earlier and received no direct response to it.

This was me being charitable to you.

If you don’t think people should walk about the streets with a sense of vigilante justice about them and decide to act on their liberty to murder other people for transgressions real or imagined

This is not you returning that charity. This is you taking my gift horse to the glue factory.

What I’m asking you is to do is define all these terms in a way that circumscribes only a fetus

How about you do it first? You've spilt a lot ink not describing any of those terms and wanting me to do all the works so you can attempt to knock them down.

I can define all these terms

Then fucking do so and stop telling me you can.

my moral framework isn’t only accurate (naturally, as I’d argue), it’s universal

Again, prove it, show me the deets.

Well good luck trying to eat your cake and have it too

You are literally doing what you accuse me of.

Then per the Socratic method, you’re being irrational.

Asking you to actually define your terms is not irrational. Accusing me of being an idiot or irrational because I am holding you to any normal debate standard is insane.

Now give me your morally coherent framework for how “none of this,” supposedly counts.

How about you stop bloviating and do it first. You are claiming this grand universal moral theory that perfectly encapsulates everything but evade any attempt to actually explain what that is. I am not claiming some grand perfect moral theory, I'm just claiming that yours is not universal. Your response to that is hate and ad hominins...

The reason this “clump of cells,” (which also captures you and I incidentally)

It also captures sperm cells and eggs. Does jacking off into a cup count as murder?

a human is because it possesses a unique genetic blueprint that is distinct from both parents and is placed on a developmental trajectory towards a fully actualized human being.

"Will become X" is not the same as "already is X" in the full morally relevant sense. You are smuggling in the assertion that because something has an endpoint it must already possess the moral status of that endpoint at all points in time.

In Catholicism innocence is defined as the state of being unburdened by deliberate malice or evil. Children are innocent because they lack the rational maturity and understanding to commit mortal sin.

Cool, now define innocence without appealing to Catholicism or sin. I'm not catholic and neither is 84% of the world.

This is what having a discussion requires. You need to leave your frame just as I leave mine, and you define your arguments in ways I can understand and agree with and vice versa. It is not a "I'm going to dictate to you what is right or wrong from my castle and you can accept it or be wrong" Considering we don't live in a theocracy, as much as apparently you'd like to (see I can be uncharitable too), Christian morals are not auto-includes in government because we have separation of church an state.

This was me being charitable to you.

You were being charitable by not having an argument to provide?

How about you do it first? You've spilt a lot ink not describing any of those terms and wanting me to do all the works so you can attempt to knock them down.

It's probably a good idea you finish reading the post before you reply. Your question was answered at the bottom.

Your response to that is hate and ad hominins...

You see quite a lot my friend. Too much. How about calmly reading my statements without reading into them?

"Will become X" is not the same as "already is X" in the full morally relevant sense. You are smuggling in the assertion that because something has an endpoint it must already possess the moral status of that endpoint at all points in time.

The argument is not one from potential. Engaging in the act itself I said "puts it on a developmental trajectory," and initiates the biological process.

Cool, now define innocence without appealing to Catholicism or sin. I'm not catholic and neither is 84% of the world.

"Malice" and "evil," homie. Or do those not exist in your vocabulary either?

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