site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   4610 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 1, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So he's poly? That should be the perfect Democrat candidate! 🤣

Yeah, he's had a ton of dumb scandals (I honestly think the tattoo thing was not "Please give me, a devout Nazi, that famous Nazi tattoo" but more "I'm drunk, I'm dumb, gimme that bad-ass skull and crossbones, hell yeah!") but the interesting thing is how much the party insiders seem to hate him. Why? He's had impeccably prog credentials in everything he's posted online. Is it because he comes across too successfully as blue-collar populist, such that he seems demi-Republican? Simply that he seems to be out-polling the established lady governor, who is the 'right sort' of Democrat? That he might beat Susan Collins? That he might split the vote and let Collins squeak out another win? That they'd prefer Collins because she's reliably squishy (see the Silver Bulletin article on Platner where she voted against Coney Barrett)?

Sexting is a very Democratic scandal (coughcoughAnthonyWeinercoughcough) and the missus standing by her man is also very Democratic (see Hillary and Bill during the Lewinsky scandal). I think Platner is a bit of an idiot but he seems no worse than Fetterman, for example.

EDIT: I wonder if part of the dislike is that he has the wrong sort of tattoos; too much 'white trash' and not enough 'progressive rainbow hair septum piercing sleeve art' style. The party of supporters who regularly opine on social media about how opposition to tattoos is rooted in white supremacy colonialism (no, really) don't like a guy with bangin' tats?

I wonder if part of the dislike is that he has the wrong sort of tattoos; too much 'white trash' and not enough 'progressive rainbow hair septum piercing sleeve art' style.

You're not telling me that there's anyone out there sincerely accusing a soldier of this, are you?

I'm wondering! The kinds of people who vociferously defend tattoos as "not trashy, you're just prejudiced and old-fashioned and dumb" are the kinds now wringing their hands over Nazi tattoos, and I am wondering if it's "we don't like Platner so suddenly we're going to put the worst possible interpretation on a tattoo".

Before tattoos have become completely commercialized and gentrified (so to speak), i.e. not a staple of white trash status anymore, there was a time when tattoos were only worn by prostitutes, soldiers, sailors and criminals (the latter group obviously also having included some former soldiers and sailors). Platner's tattoos are pretty much just a throwback to those days.

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