site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20781 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.

If you only think a discussion could be worthwhile if you start from a position of genuinely having no priors, then it will be very difficult to discuss anything.

Remember that position the next time you are modding somebody for "we don't say the Democrats are demons round these parts".

EDIT: By which I mean, if someone has the priors "Democrats are all demons", they are still expected to abide by the "boo outgroup" rule and express their argument about any particular act, speech, or other story in the media on the merits of the act etc. itself, and not "Given that all Democrats are demons, look at this awful thing they just did which demonstrates that they are demons".

But that suddenly does not come into play here? We can all go in with "Given angels do/don't exist, here is evidence for them existing/not existing" and that's fine?

I'm not asking for anyone to convert to any religion. What I'm saying is that the OP can ask religious people on here "why do you believe?" and get answers, but that's as much as we can do. If we go deeper into a discussion, inevitably it will end up "yeah but that's stupid/okay you think you believe that but the real explanation is a natural one" on one side, and "I know this is true by the burning in my bosom" on the other, and nobody is going to convince anybody out of their settled positions.

And we don't need another round of pointless fighting and name-calling.

Remember that position the next time you are modding somebody for "we don't say the Democrats are demons round these parts".

What are you even arguing here? Are you equating "Angels don't exist" with "Democrats are demons"? Are you trolling me?

ETA to your ETA:

But that suddenly does not come into play here? We can all go in with "Given angels do/don't exist, here is evidence for them existing/not existing" and that's fine?

Yes. You still haven't answered my very simple question: what is, in your view, an acceptable way for atheists to express disbelief, since you now seem to literally be arguing that it should be a bannable offense?

Someone saying "Angels do not exist" is not booing their outgroup. (Unless angels do exist, in which case I guess they could be offended?)

If we go deeper into a discussion, inevitably it will end up "yeah but that's stupid/okay you think you believe that but the real explanation is a natural one"

People are allowed to tell you there are natural explanations for your beliefs. I have actually banned people for calling religious believers stupid.

And we don't need another round of pointless fighting and name-calling.

It is perfectly possible to have religious discussions with believers and atheists without name-calling. If you think it's "pointless fighting" because minds rarely change, welcome to the Motte. Which other subjects do you think we just shouldn't talk about?

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