site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5684 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 25, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Rhetoric gymnastics are not what I come here for.

You pretended that the poster was claiming that all black people are likely to misuse guns. Here's what you said:

It is not obvious to me that the sets of "black people" and "black criminals" are the same circle. While the 13/52 FBI stats are quoted a lot, I have never seen any stats that clarify how large a percentage of the 13 commits the 52.

In reality, the poster made it clear he was talking about a subset:

If you have significant amount of blacks in your society then you must ban guns entirely and make possession a felony, or else aggressive and violently inclined black youth will eventually get their hands on guns through legal means or the black (pun intended?) market

Even if he hadn't made that clear, that would have been the charitable reading.

I don't know if "rhetoric gymnastics" were your main purpose in coming here, but that's what your posts are displaying.

There is no charitable reason to specifically say "If you have significant amount of blacks in your society..." and "aggressive and violently inclined black youth will eventually get their hands on guns" unless you want to imply that the black criminals, among all criminals, are uniquely incompatible with guns. As if white, or Han Chinese, or Latino criminals don't have a tendency of getting their hands on guns should guns become available.

I consider this to be common sense and nitpicking around the exact meaning of the poster's statement, devoid of context, meaningless.

There is no charitable reason to specifically say "If you have significant amount of blacks in your society..." and "aggressive and violently inclined black youth will eventually get their hands on guns" unless you want to imply that the black criminals, among all criminals, are uniquely incompatible with guns.

I disagree. For example, quite possibly Irish Travelers and guns don't mix well in the same way. I really have no idea, but certainly making this kind of claim about blacks doesn't imply that Irish Travelers are a-ok with guns. According, to you, claiming, in substance that "Blacks and guns don't mix well" implies that Irish Travelers are perfectly fine with guns. At best, that's an uncharitable reading. At worst, it's a strawman.

Anyway, you completely ignored my other point. When you said this:

It is not obvious to me that the sets of "black people" and "black criminals" are the same circle. While the 13/52 FBI stats are quoted a lot, I have never seen any stats that clarify how large a percentage of the 13 commits the 52.

this was not just an uncharitable reading. It was a full on attack on a strawman. As noted above, the poster made it very clear what he meant and you responded as though he had said something else.

In any event, I do not engage with people who use these kinds of strawman tactics. Feel free to have the last word, I will not read it or respond.

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