site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   25623 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.

You can't kick someone out for something like murder before they murder obviously, this isn't Minority Report.

Yes you can! The Zizians were kicked out for pre-crime. No superhuman precogs required.

What bullet am I biting...

Sorry, wrong subject for that sentence. I have to bite the bullet and accept collective responsibility for my countryman's actions if I want to be consistent. You have already set yourself apart.

I know that there's an incentive to give myself a pass by claiming he isn't part of my group, but that would be a lie. He's a scotsman, and scotsmen murder.

Then it's not collective responsibility if you allow all the people who aren't responsible and don't actively support bad things to dodge blame!

That's tautological. The people who aren't responsible aren't responsible while the people who are, are. We simply set different boundaries. People can dodge blame by genuinely not being blameworthy.

Yes exactly, and all what I've given is motivated reasoning I've seen people engaged in!

They're wrong. There's not much more to add to that.

it's generally related to their own personal experiences feeling uncomfortable and not the actual thing in question "I'm responsible for what someone else did".

I've seen variations of "We failed at..." and "I wish I could have done something about..." alongside other implicit claims of responsibility. "I'm responsible for..." isn't a common saying in any part of society (unless it's something boring like a task at work), so I'm not surprised it isn't explicit here either.

If you're the head of the "Dog Lovers club" and kick someone out, they can just go make their own "Dog Likers" club.

Consider Autism Speaks. They are roundly and consistently criticized by other autism advocacy organizations for their stances. If they do something, it doesn't reflect on those other organizations because they have been kicked out of the cool kids club.

Yes you can! The Zizians were kicked out for pre-crime. No superhuman precogs required.

Were they "kicked out"? Seems like they were still going around as rationalists after. And was it actually for pre-crime? If so, how did they know and why did no one report their evidence of upcoming murders to the police?

Sorry, wrong subject for that sentence. I have to bite the bullet and accept collective responsibility for my countryman's actions if I want to be consistent. You have already set yourself apart.

I know that there's an incentive to give myself a pass by claiming he isn't part of my group, but that would be a lie. He's a scotsman, and scotsmen murder.

That's tautological. The people who aren't responsible aren't responsible while the people who are, are. We simply set different boundaries. People can dodge blame by genuinely not being blameworthy.

Wait, but don't these contradict? Aren't you, a Scotsman, genuinely not blameworthy of another random Scotsman commiting murder?

You're saying there's collective responsibility of Scotsmen, while also saying that Scotsmen are able to dodge blame and not be responsible.

I've seen variations of "We failed at..." and "I wish I could have done something about..." alongside other implicit claims of responsibility. "I'm responsible for..." isn't a common saying in any part of society (unless it's something boring like a task at work), so I'm not surprised it isn't explicit here either.

Ok it's possible. Genuinely can't contest what people might actually mean even when they don't say it cause you are right that people don't admit their mistakes often. I don't think it's common regardless but we can't test it well either way then.

Consider Autism Speaks. They are roundly and consistently criticized by other autism advocacy organizations for their stances. If they do something, it doesn't reflect on those other organizations because they have been kicked out of the cool kids club.

Seems like an awful example, autism speaks is still the largest autism related advocacy group around and one of the only groups anyone knows about. If they were "kicked out of the cool kids club", it didn't seem to actually matter. Autism Speaks for most of the population not deeply immersed into the autism community is autism advocacy, and they don't even know there is a rift.

If there's any lesson here in that example, it's that kicking people out doesn't work.

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