site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27234 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem is, per Joe Kent, the Israelis needs to be “reigned in”.

I think it's "reined it" correctly.

I think "reigned in" might have reached status of being a correct version of the phrase due to popular use, with an invented-etymological explanation being that it's like a king ordering someone to pull back. It's like how "could" now means the same thing as "couldn't" when part of the phrase "could care less," due to how people have been confusing the terms (or rather, it seems that people have made up the explanation that "could care less" is a reference to the fact that they care so little that it's less than anyone or anything - they "could care less [than some arbitrary X, and they do indeed do what they could]"). Or like how "literally" now means "emphatically" or "severely" in some contexts.

None of those things you listed are correct. Popular use does not make something correct, it means that a lot of people speak the language badly because they don't care enough to learn.

"'Good' could mean 'bad' actually," said Chad with a smirk, as he pulled a Coors from the cooler and cracked it open.

"Prescriptivists are too rigid in their etymology."

Good does mean bad though, and has done since Michael Jackson.

Point taken, but the difference is that as opposed to 'could care less' and 'literally' the phrase 'to reign in' makes no grammatical sense.

On a related note, the case of lose vs loose is similar.

"Could care less" and misuse of "literally" also make no grammatical sense. The former is especially egregious, as it means almost nothing as stated. Knowing that someone could care less only tells me that he cares a nonzero amount, but it could be anywhere from "almost completely unimportant" to "the most important thing in his life".

“I could care less” annoys the crap out of me, literally. Literal human waste is being excreted due to my annoyance.

I do find it pretty funny though. “I could care less about your feelings!” almost feels triumphant, like “I could care less, but I don’t care enough to care less!” It’s a joke a competent comedian could probably spin into something hilarious. I don’t love the expression though, both because it confuses so many people and because it’s just a strange way to say “I don’t care.” Just say that.

the phrase 'to reign in' makes no grammatical sense.

Anon, I...

Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

In this case, the phrase 'to reign Israelis in' makes no grammatical sense.

Of course it makes grammatical sense. You've got a verb acting on an object and a preposition. There's plenty of verbs that work this way ("to butter Israelis up"). The question of whether you can use "reign" in this way is one of semantics, not grammar.

Hold up. The phrase "to butter someone up" is in the dictionary and has a definition. On the other hand, "to reign the Israelis in" means "to rule Israelis in". How the heck do you rule someone in?

That wouldn't make grammatical sense. However, if the original phrase was "we need to reign in the Israelis", then maybe it could?

For example, if the speaker was one of those science fiction parasites that burrow into a person's nervous system and take over.

Edward the VIII abdicated to reign in his own family instead.

I like a grammatical challenge.

In this case, the phrase 'to reign Israelis in' makes no grammatical sense.

That is correct. "Reined in" as one would control a horse.

I reign over my horse with its reins.

Yes, which is the same reason why people usually mean 'free rein' when they speak of 'free reign'.

Best to just go with "rained in".

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