site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   19722 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.

There's nothing particularly vague about my view of you. I think you regularly exhibit many of the not-late Darwin's worse tropes in your posting style, regardless of whether you are another sockpuppet of his or not.

This includes his propensity to fight the culture war by fronting a position only to drop or even deny it when inconvenient for the current culture war. Darwin also had a habit to quibble that he never did such a change even when provided past evidence, invite people to engage on his framing of the issue, and then ignore their actual position (and, routinely, follow-up posts' positions).

Like, say, taking a post on ways to counter Darwin-esque evasiveness and demonstrating a difference from Darwin-esque tactics, and then claiming that it is a personal accusation. And then challenging that the reasonableness of such a personal accusation should be demonstrated reasonable through past history to be pulled and cited. A history review which has nothing to do with demonstrating the good faith in arguments provided as a way to distinguish good and bad.

That is very much the sort of implicit accusation and argument deflection Darwin liked to pull.

This includes his propensity to fight the culture war by fronting a position only to drop or even deny it when inconvenient for the current culture war

I invited you to provide some of this unexplainable hypocrisy I apparently do if it's so common. I invite you to do it again. Should be easy.

Like, say, taking a post on ways to counter Darwin-esque evasiveness and demonstrating a difference from Darwin-esque tactics, and then claiming that it is a personal accusation.

Wait was it not about me?

Then why did you say

What part of magicalkitty's posting history

Is there another person with a name like this you were actually referring to? It sure seems like your comment was about me first and foremost!

And then challenging that the reasonableness of such a personal accusation should be demonstrated reasonable through past history to be pulled and cited.

Now I don't know who you're talking about still, but you do realize "we couldn't provide any actual proof with this other guy either" is a very unconvincing argument to be making. But hey, I realize I'm actually just the completely unrelated third person because the "magical kitty" you were referring to was apparently someone else.

I don't normally report comments but I'm definitely going it here. This "I'm not talking about you, I just said your name multiple times" gimmick doesn't have a good explanation beyond actual bad faith. Extremely childish, reflect on yourself.

I invited you to provide some of this unexplainable hypocrisy I apparently do if it's so common. I invite you to do it again. Should be easy.

Already done, thank you for repeating the demonstration of this Darwinism.

Wait was it not about me?

Then why did you say

What part of magicalkitty's posting history

Is there another person with a name like this you were actually referring to?

I see you feign confusion to the transition paragraphs where we stopped talking about you, shifted to the distinction of good faith versus bad faith presentations, and transitioned to the not-late Darwin as an example of the failure state and how sincerity can counter suspicions of bad faith.

Hence why the next paragraphs were-

I love me a good jawboning and devil's advocacy, but there is a difference between treating debate as a sport and using debate to make sport of others. Faith is as good a distinction as others- after all, if the other person has no faith to believe you're interested in the sport as opposed to making sport of them, there's not going to be a sport with them because it takes two to debate in good faith.

One of the ways to demonstrate good faith, in turn, is to hold to present and maintain sincere positions. Sincerity in turn can be demonstrated not just by elaboration upon request- as in someone who sincerely wants to be understood as opposed to someone deliberately trying to instigate misunderstandings and conflict- but also by maintaining consistency across iterations. You can absolutely provide devil's advocate / steelman positions distinct from your own position, but only if you actually have a position of your own.

To my knowledge, magicalkitty has denied being darwin / guesswho/ whatever other alts that person had. But Darwin was a bad faith interlocuter par excellence, and he had his own history of defending or deflecting accusations of his bad faith arguments on the grounds of 'just trying to adopt a position he didn't believe.' That was the demonstration, not defense, of his sort of bad faith.

The counter to that Darwin-esque behavior, in turn, is pressing the person to make clear their sincere position, and seeing if / how they either directly answer it or try to wiggle out of that challenge.

I will note that ignoring paragraphs of intervening texts and the argument within in replies to him was one of Darwin's bad faith habits, and a non-trivial reason for why his invitations for people to engage in make-work to prove themselves were declined.

It sure seems like your comment was about me first and foremost!

Two paragraphs of interim topic transition to general topics and then someone else can seem like a lot of things to the sufficiently motivated.

Again, this is extremely childish of you.

You

  1. Accuse me of "Darwin esque behavior"

  2. Define "Darwin esque behavior" as doing X

  3. Claim you're not actually saying I'm doing X, and my reading into it is just actually just proof of the Darwin esque behavior of X, which is not the thing you're accusing me of but is also proof of your accusations.

Come on dude. You're getting blocked. This is literally Kafkaesque nonsense. Want you to back up your claims that you apparently aren't making? That's just more proof of the claims that aren't being made!

I see you feign confusion to the transition paragraphs where we stopped talking about you,

Two paragraphs of interim topic transition to general topics

Not to mention just blatantly lying. In your own quote, literally the second to last paragraph mentions my name again.You are just blatant about this lying. Grow up.

Conflating comparison and contrast to lying is certainly a deflection to the paragraphs that led to it, I suppose.

Comparison and contrast

You know what sure, I'm gonna unblock you just for this. You had the honesty to admit it actually was about me the whole time, as was obvious as your comment was about comparing me to him. Unless I guess you wanna start saying that you can "compare" one thing with nothing.

Thank you for your admission. Please don't try the "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" strat again.

@Dean, knock it off.

You - you're participating in this slapfight too and not conducting yourself any better. If you want to block someone, block them and move on, do not loudly announce you are blocking them, do not loudly announce you are reporting them, and do not say you're blocking someone but you're unblocking just to have one last word.

Also, sigh, just to put this to rest so we don't have to hear about it forever: are you Darwin?

Can you explain why @Dean is the one getting moderated here and not mkc?

I spoke to both of them. Don't know how you concluded I was only rapping Dean.

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