site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   21886 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 18, 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 am of the opinion that we never found out the extent of the guilt/liability because the process of the law was not carried out to its conclusion when the IRS and DOJ decided to settle behind close doors essentially. No judge, no jury, and certainly no congress. All I know about the case that has been decided so far is that the leaker, Charles Littlejohn, is definitely guilty and was sentenced to the maximum sentence under the law

If I have to put a number based on vibes and information I know at the moment, let's say confidence percentage (I'm not well versed in terminology for opinion/prediction) I would say:

  1. 0%: there was an org-wide conspiracy that the entirety of the IRS organization from the top of the chain of command down to the rank-and-file organized themselves so that they can leak Trump's tax return through a contractor.
  2. 100%: Littlejohn is guilty of leaking Trump's and thousands of other high net worth individuals tax returns.
  3. <1%: there was a particular conspiracy of close-knitted people that instigated Littlejohn to be the leaker and fall guy in such a way that Littlejohn thought he had the idea of his own will and therefore they can't be implicated.
  4. 1%: there was a particular conspiracy of close-knitted people that included Littlejohn and he decided to be the fall guy and is really good at not being a snitch.
  5. 5%: IRS was negligent in the hiring and vetting of Littlejohn as the contractor
  6. 1%: IRS was criminally negligent in the hiring and vetting of Littlejohn as the contractor
  7. <5%: IRS was illegally negligent in the hiring and vetting of Littlejohn as the contractor
  8. 80%: IRS was negligent in the designing, creating, maintaining, monitoring, and auditing the processes that led to Littlejohn be able to access, download, and leak the tax returns of Trump and other high net worth individuals.
  9. <20%: IRS was criminally negligent in the designing, creating, maintaining, monitoring, and auditing the processes that led to Littlejohn be able to access, download, and leak the tax returns of Trump and other high net worth individuals.
  10. 70%: IRS was illegally negligent in the designing, creating, maintaining, monitoring, and auditing the processes that led to Littlejohn be able to access, download, and leak the tax returns of Trump and other high net worth individuals.

If I have to couch the case so far from my perspective in this forum's terminology. The motte is that "the leak was bad", and the bailey is "the consequences of the leak should be this". The laws are clear and the leaker was guilty and sentenced when it comes to his case. When it comes to the IRS case though, the process of the law was not carried out so it's all murky and easy to understand as being viewed as unjust by a certain part of the public, especially when the consequences are now being reported as:

  1. third party settlements of over a billion dollars
  2. a group of individuals are now "immune from IRS audits"

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