site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18886 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is a straw man. If anyone critiques the present United States/Western economic system, he must believe in some terrible 19th century egalitarian philosophy book.

You have the same basic problem of the communists, you think you can decide better than market actors what labor is worth paying for. It's an incredible hubris. The employer wants to pay senior staff well, the senior staff wants to do work but you seethe separately at the arrangement.

The problem with this is that basically nobody who makes this argument is willing to let the fentanyl market come to full fruition. Or many other markets.

There's a lot of space between anarchism and not believing that you should get to decide who's labor is valuable and who's isn't for other people.

What are you talking about? In reality I am only allowed, with a ton of friction, to create a tax paying company that panders to the democratic market. If I create a business that actually crushes other institutions and takes, that's called a criminal enterprise in the vast majority of cases, and the commies come in and violently destroy you. We do not live under anarcho-capitalism.

Are you talking exclusively about state run businesses?

You have the same basic problem of the communists, you think you can decide better than market actors what labor is worth paying for. It's an incredible hubris.

You have the same hubris if you think you ought to ban two consenting individuals from exchanging fentanyl for other resources. Ultimately you are not preaching pure anarcho-capitalism. You are preaching massism. Therefore, regulation is okay when the mass votes for it, and free market is best when the mass says so. In 1910 you would have been hopeful about Marxism, since some masses seemed to want it. The mass hates fentanyl because it kills their cousins, so it's banned. The mass loves mindless entertainment, so a that has value, and I have hubris for disagreeing with the mass and holding to principals other than The Mass Is Always Right.

There's a lot of space between anarchism and not believing that you should get to decide who's labor is valuable and who's isn't for other people.

The average person does that to me, a minority, every day.

Are you talking exclusively about state run businesses?

I've just never seen any true wealth culling in recent capitalism. Seems like whoever gets money keeps money. Sometimes businesses close and the poor get poorer, the executives float on and stay rich. There is never really any catharsis. Whatever causes the right people to move down and the wrong people to move up is quickly regulated by Massism.

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