site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12169 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I said "best practice for maximizing a fentanyl-overdose patient's chances of survival"; not "police best-practice for dealing with a drugged-out suspect who might be dying but might also still be a danger to others". It may very well be that keeping him restrained on the off-chance that if they'd relaxed the hold, he would have turned out to be faking enfeeblement and run off and harassed people, was a defensible gamble for public safety. But if, in a situation of Bayesian uncertainty, you choose to prioritize neutralizing the potential threat posed by an individual over that individual's own health, and it turns out he was in fact dying, then you're responsible for his death. That doesn't necessarily mean you made the wrong choice, but you did make a choice that led to his death and you need to own up to that.

But if, in a situation of Bayesian uncertainty, you choose to prioritize neutralizing the potential threat posed by an individual over that individual's own health, and it turns out he was in fact dying, then you're responsible for his death.

It's also worth noting that the police were surrounded by hostile people yelling at them. That's going to split attention and make it difficult to stop and check the guy and do first aid. And they had an ambulance on the way. (Iirc, it actually took a wrong turn and was delayed for several minutes.)

And the concern isn't just that Floyd might have hurt others. He could very easily have tried to get up and fallen and hurt himself. Like I said, I've personally seen someone in a comparable state literally crack their own skull open by falling over and hitting the corner of the curb. And in such a case, the PD is still getting sued or worse because "He was obviously in distress, why didn't you keep better control of him!"

If Floyd ingested a gigadose of drugs then he's responsible for his own death far more than the policeman who held him down.

And likewise if Digwa stabbed Nowak through the lung he's far more responsible for Nowak's death than the police officers who failed to get Nowak first aid, but responsibility still exists even if it isn't exclusive.

I think there's an important difference in kind. The state has a legitimate use on the monopoly of force.

When you rob a store the state has a duty to restrain you. The first danger to Floyd's life was caused by his own decision to swallow his own drugs. The second danger, the use of force by the state, is justified in principle. Now we're just debating how much force was appropriate.

When you're stabbed by someone the state has a duty to restrain him. The first danger to Nowak's life was caused by Digwa. The second danger was caused by the inappropriate use of state power to restrain Nowak. It's a different kind of mistake: the state did not monopolize its use of force. Digwa was allowed to use lethal force. And the state watched.

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