site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24290 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 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.

I don't like that we're describing every accusation as a blood libel now. I'm not a fan of creeping woke rhetorical norms.

The doctor above objected that while they had seen cases of dogs anally penetrating humans, it was always consensual. This is an absurd assertion: the dog has no concept of consent.

I remain blissfully ignorant on the practicality of this entire episode.

Not every accusation against the IDF is a blood libel, but this one seems bang on.

It has all the right texture; It combines religious / social taboo with maximally inflammatory claims with little to no regard for practicality or realism. It relies on Jews having almost a cosmic quality of evil to them, it’s borderline magical thinking.

For a counter example; the accusation of the IDF blowing up that school in Iran. Not a blood libel, just a plain old accusation of atrocities. Textbook stuff, the same type of propaganda and counter propaganda you might see for example in the Irish war for Independence or the American Civil War. Much more mundane.

For a counter example; the accusation of the IDF blowing up that school in Iran. Not a blood libel, just a plain old accusation of atrocities.

And here's the Free Press:

It was unsettling to watch California governor Gavin Newsom on Monday spouting off a rejiggered blood libel this week, and not simply because Democrats have mostly succumbed to a fashionable Jew hate.

The term Blood Libel is used constantly in the Pro-Israel press to refer to anything that anyone accuses the Jews of having done wrong. Accusations of Antisemitism have become the new thought terminating cliche.

Yep! You’ll get no argument from me that it’s overused almost as much the antisemitic tropes it’s being leveled against. People do indeed use the word for cases that don’t fit.

However, the “IDF Training dogs to anally rape Muslims” is almost a platonic example of a modern blood libel. It’s basically a perfect case.

That’s my point.

Exactly. Commentary from Jews about anti-semitism is generally so tedious and hysterical, it feels like I am living in a world where NPR never gave up their ridiculous campaigns against "anti-AAPI hate."

Which is why it is so dismaying to me to see this obvious lie about dog rape published in the New York Times; for once I am unable to roll my eyes when Jews claim "blood libel."

"Lord, protect me from my friends sympathetic press; I can handle my enemies on my own."

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