site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16630 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.

It’s a path to redemption not a path to place of honor. Unless you would claim that Christianity honors equality all sinners who have joined in following Christ. But considering the hierarchical nature of most churches I think thats a lot to swallow

Also, creepy megachurch pastors? Pedo Priests? Allowing people in power to abuse that power is classic human dynamics. Cast not the first stone unless ye are free from sin.

By "place of honor" I mean a place where you're a member of community in good standing. In Christianity that's going to church and confessing (+possibly making amends, depending on the nature of your sin), that's the "path to redemption", and if you're on it, no one will bother you unless you start bothering others.

Also, creepy megachurch pastors? Pedo Priests?

They exist, but their existence was overblown compared to literally any other human institution.

Allowing people in power to abuse that power is classic human dynamics. Cast not the first stone unless ye are free from sin.

I'm not talking about abuses of power. I'm talking about what the given worldview sees as a justified use of power.

I mean if “member in good standing with community” is your barometer then absolutely what i said applies to prog spaces. I exist in prog spaces and the avg white man is absolutely accepted as long as they mutter the shibboleths.

If anything they don’t really require you to believe them so much as you don’t cause waves or have some plausible deniability.

Now the infighting you are alluding to is among the leadership, the narcissists, the sociopaths. Aka not normal folks. And yes to have power requires special circumstances in the memeplex, but hereditary or ideological purity as a metric of power inside a movement is not unique.

is your barometer then absolutely what i said applies to prog spaces. I exist in prog spaces and the avg white man is absolutely accepted as long as they mutter the shibboleths.

...with the caveat that if a bunch of "underprivileged" people tell you you need to shut up and listen to them because you're privileged, that's what you have to do. That's not what I call "good standing".

If anything they don’t really require you to believe them so much as you don’t cause waves or have some plausible deniability.

Yeah, but they regularly put you in situations where it's hard to keep plausible deniability. Feminists thought that they have to say "trans women are women" just to be nice, and then they got told to wax feminine balls.

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