site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   7147 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 20, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're the specialist when it comes to defense mechanisms, and you seem to have a good model there, but I'll suggest, tentatively, that there's a deeper deflection, here.

The structure of that preference is the thesis. A book about a woman choosing to indulge cannot be discussed in the presence of a woman who, at the direction of her physician, has chosen not to. The theology Ortega has constructed around appetite accommodates exactly one appetite. Hers. Every other body in her vicinity is a set piece in the ongoing production of her recovery, and any body that steps out of its blocking receives a two-thousand-word writeup in a national magazine.

I think it's a bit worse than even that, and even worse than Amadan's "incapable of genuine self-awareness, reflection, or taking responsibility for their own emotional reactions". Ortega doesn't recoil like an alcoholic, or a gambling addict, nor does she spiral around the subject like a smoker patting her pockets for cigs that she left in her coat. She knows, pretty directly, what she's doing and that she's hurting herself and others doing it. The fascination and fixation on appetite is, itself, an excuse.

The story is about her ex-friend. It's about her control of that ex-friend.

That's a running theme.

The wegovy is a symbol, just as countless other examples and offenses have been symbols. It's something someone else did Wrong, that let her draw a new ultimatum, then evaluate whether the person would follow her lead, or be cut out. The stigma being applied to a perfectly good medication is an intentional benefit, but it's just a side effect.

I mean, optimistically, she might just be a sociopathic liar who makes up non-existent friends and incidents to explain how control should be acted out for others, but I'm not that optimistic, and she's not a good enough writer to be a good liar. Charitably, she might be like the vampires of Pratchett's later works, who substitute one form of addiction for another, where she substituted one need for control for another, and her substitution of controlling people for controlling food intake is just much direr than an addiction to photography or coffee. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

I didn't want to say BPD, but let's be honest, it's probably BPD. I'm not sure if she meets the usual criteria for sociopathy (which is a far looser and more informal qualifier than ASPD, which I doubt she has), but she's clearly a massive narcissist, with a genuinely impressive capability to make everything about her. Maybe that warrants a formal diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder too, but I'm only willing and able to go so far. Her black and white mentality/splitting is evocative.

My therapist calls my tendency toward logistical care-taking a manipulative bid for control. I call it efficiency activism.

I'm starting to think the therapist might be part of the problem too... Then again, is she a reliable narrator? Fuck it, surely she can't have found someone as bad as her right? I'm siding with the therapist out of professional solidarity.

She knows, pretty directly, what she's doing and that she's hurting herself and others doing it. The fascination and fixation on appetite is, itself, an excuse.

Agreed. She does get off on control, both direct and indirect forms. "Oh, sorry, you dared to take medication that I disapprove of? What exists without my knowledge exists without my consent, and you know that I'm a big fan of consent culture."

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