site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   26052 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.

So you know how even two loving people in a relationship still have to compromise over things sometimes despite only being two people who are self selected for similar tastes?

That's going to happen with your fantasy society too

Either-or fallacy. If you marry the wrong person, you are miserable. The best thing they can do is split apart or else one person will be motivated to domineer because their differences are too deep. So, 20th century empires are essentially poorly selected, abusive marriages. That doesn't mean there isn't a better spouse possible.

You're still going to feel like you "lose" on most topics because you're going to be one voice out of, let's say roughly 36 million people if we go off your 10%

No, because they are defined as agreeing with me on the important topics.

And you'll be in many real ways weaker for it. You'll have a poorer economy less able to achieve any particular goals you want. You'll have a much weaker military.

No it wouldn't. Open free trade economy, super intelligent population will mean possibility for elite weapons program and great economy. The whole point is merely to throw off the yoke of proletariat moral laws. Essentially it would be a libertarian polis for high IQ people. Dumb people can come and work, which they will want to do because there will be lots of money, but they will get no say in the politics because they won't ever earn citizenship. When you give them a say, they subjugate better people , which is what is happening in the 20th century empires.

The reason why societies mostly stick together is the same whether it be within the same country or economic unions like the EU or alliances, it's because the benefits of having more than just yourself are great and worth varying amounts of compromise.

No it's mostly race, language, and domination.

You'll be easy pickings by the ~330 million people who are still part of the greater compromise that is American society.

There are many ways around this. The United States could break down and split up. The polity could be far away from the United States. The polity could have a charter with the United States. The polity could have a deal with a serious competitor like China. If the polity were hyper-militaristic, it could rival the size of the United States military with 10% of the base population. Have you heard of Israel by the way? It's like Israel.

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