site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8808 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 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.

Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in a court.

Maybe he said that in a court as well, but he also said it in a press conference. He was under no obligation to repeat the knowingly misleading answer he made in court outside of the courthouse.

Honestly, who gives a shit?

This is a ridiculous flogged to death hobby horse some Americans insist on sticking to. Clinton had bad taste in women? So fucking what? That's completely and utterly irrelevant to literally anything at all other than keeping up juvenile kindergarten level "Clinton is a poohead"-rhetoric that mostly just tells how the complainer doesn't know when to give up when they have no actual criticism left.

  • -13

Clinton had bad taste in women? So fucking what?

Well, well, well. I know that even at the time there was a lot of rewriting what happened going on, but now we're "so he likes trashy bitches, is that a crime?"

Monica Lewinsky was 22 years old and Bill Clinton was 49 years old at the start of the affair. So, literally old enough to be her father - Chelsea Clinton is seven years younger than Monica.

It was adultery. It was power-imbalance (she was an intern, he was Most Powerful Man In The World if we go with the hype around the American presidency). It could be called grooming or other modern terms, but let's not go there, let's stick with the terms of the day. Sexual harassment? Inappropriate conduct in the workplace? Having sex of some sort in the Oval Office (the infamous blue dress which would have been enough, as per the E. Jean Carroll trial, to get Clinton convicted of rape)?

Logic-chopping (to use the kindest term) or lying (if we're being brutal) over 'what is a sexual relationship, anyway? we weren't in a relationship, I was just fucking her':

During the grand jury testimony, Clinton's responses were carefully worded, and he argued "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is", with regard to the truthfulness of his statement that "there is not a sexual relationship, an improper sexual relationship or any other kind of improper relationship"

On January 26, President Clinton, standing with his wife, spoke at a White House press conference, and issued a denial in which he said:

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

I'm old enough to remember this as it happened. And all the feminists who had been agitating about workplace sexual harassment suddenly decided that blow jobs were all fine harmless fun, so long as the guy getting them was committed to keeping abortion legal.

Did Starr mess it all up, did he degenerate into persecution? Yeah. But the basic form of it is that Clinton lied, but perjury by a president of the USA is not a big deal - so long as it's not Trump, right?

I'm not American. I was bringing it up to illustrate a point about how it's possible to make a statement which is technically true, and yet which any reasonable person would consider lying, using an example most people are familiar with. If you think I brought it up just to attack a President who's been out of office for a quarter-century – I mean, maybe read the actual article first?

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