site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12323 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.

FIRE is among the many, many, many organizations who lost their way and don't support what they say on the tin. Look at their tagline for that very article:

Just wait until the Democrats want to censor a political opponent.

Do they think I'm an idiot? Do they think I haven't been paying attention? Did they forget the world they themselves have lived through?

I don't need to wait, because I've seen it for well over a decade at this point. I know exactly what it looks like when Democrats want to censor political opponents, and it looks like massive coordinated deplatforming from every institution or large conglomerate in the world.

What the fuck is FIRE thinking publishing this kind of dreck? They ought to know better, but then again, see my first sentence.

Thinking about the Obama administration: malicious tax audits of non-profits, Operation Choke Point debanking conspiracy and Citizens United outright censorship. So yeah I don't have to imagine very hard.

FIRE is among the many, many, many organizations who lost their way and don't support what they say on the tin.

Wait since when? It sounds like you are just pissy that they have principles. Meaning they defend free speech even when its a conservative in the executive.

Their archive has a ton of recent cases that do not cleave to a left vs right dichotomy but instead a free speech principled stance. https://www.fire.org/cases

Wait since when? It sounds like you are just pissy that they have principles. Meaning they defend free speech even when its a conservative in the executive.

Greg Lukiaoff the CEO has talked about this before and calls it "hypocrisy projection"

Hypocrisy projection: When someone who generally only cares about the free speech rights of people they agree with asserts that everybody ELSE is a hypocrite, usually without actually bothering to check if their opponent has, in fact, been consistent.

(this term is incredibly useful on social media bc it happens all the damn time)

https://x.com/glukianoff/status/1784609444124316135

You see this constantly in replies to FIRE lawyers, people who have no idea what they are will go "You didn't say anything about X or Y" when no, FIRE definitely did do that. It's constant from all political directions.

People just fling out accusations of hypocrisy at them to cover up for their own hypocrisy.

There’s also someone going by the handle “Law Boy,” who recently asked why there has been no commentary from FIRE on Columbia’s suspensions and arrests of protesters on their campus. Of course, people at FIRE have commented on this, in an official capacity, making the same arguments made above about content-neutral rules and civil disobedience. And of course, the goal posts were, to quote someone in the replies, “packed up and moved to Sudan” the moment this was pointed out.

Being a principled person is a fun life cause you'll have people telling you're biased and unfair in every direction you can imagine and there's just no convincing them. They don't want to be convinced, you can lead the horse to a river, dunk their head in and make them drink it and they'll spit it out!

Being a principled person is a fun life cause [reasons]

You're actually correct on this one; that's some good theory of mind.

They don't want to be convinced, you can lead the horse to a river, dunk their head in and make them drink it and they'll spit it out!

On this page, you have a bunch of people repeatedly asking you for evidence your positions; you consistently obfuscate, deflect, and pretend to misunderstand what they're saying.

I understand that it's flattering to cast yourself as a principled person, and anyone disagreeing with you is just terminally stupid.

Thing is, it's not actually true.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it would be great for accusers of MKC to post receipts along with their accusations. Right now it just seems like people are ganging up on him for no good reason.

Well, this did happen just yesterday and today in the thread you're talking in right now. Pick your poison of long "Fetch more comments" threads involving the person you just replied to. Or go to the profile in question and search "Bottom" for low-lights.

I meant they should be more specific as in actual quotes and articulate convincingly how MKC is supposedly intellectually dishonest and trolling rather than simply linking to a particular thread. I get that vagueness is easier to defend, but just by briefly reading over the thread, it seems like he's being dogpiled for adopting a different framing than what is consistent with the Overton window here.

On Reddit, people with right-wing (or even moderate!) opinions often get dogpiled and shouted down and get called intellectually dishonest (and therefore eligible to be banned) even if they are earnest in their beliefs, because they find the left-wing framing, evidence, or arguments unconvincing. I hope this place is still somewhere everyone can speak their mind and disagree, and not right-wing Reddit.

Why would anyone link you receipts if you're just going to briefly read over stuff and incorrectly assert what the actual contents are? Both stoatherd and FtttG (and others) were trying to get mkc to actually back up an argument and it devolved really, really far. Go back and read it more thoroughly.

”Goal posts were packed up and moved to Sudan” is one of those lines you wish you’d remember to use the next time it’d be appropriate.

Lmao if you keep agreeing with me and I with you, someone might call me your sockpuppet. Brb gotta go touch grass with my real life obligations.

But yes, very intuitive to what behavior is happening here.

I didn't see this one in there.

So your stance is words are worth more than actions?

What about this one, this one, this one

That article is a reprint and kept the tagline from the original. Lukianoff himself at least remains aware, though whether he still controls FIRE or it was skinsuited out from under him I don't know.

Hey Tim, I’m happy to be an ally on free speech issues. But I literally wrote a book about cancel culture, and I’m not going to participate in the collective amnesia surrounding what happened between 2014 and 2024. We can debate causes, consequences, scope, and definitions. What we can’t honestly do is pretend it never happened.

FIRE is among the many, many, many organizations who lost their way and don't support what they say on the tin. Look at their tagline for that very article:

Can you give a single example where FIRE took the pro censorship side?

What the fuck is FIRE thinking publishing this kind of dreck? They ought to know better, but then again, see my first sentence.

They're a free speech organization in favor of free speech and they know one way that you convince people to support free speech is to get them to consider "what if it happens to me?". Would you want to have the government claim you threatened the next president for saying 86 48?

Here is an example of them aligning with Democratic interests to facilitate homelessness.

Just like the when the Sierra Club starts talking about immigration rights instead of saying that immigrants to the US are bad for the environment, when FIRE starts talking about homelessness I recognize it as Conquest's Second Law.

Here is an example of them aligning with Democratic interests to facilitate homelessness.

They lost their way on free speech by standing up for free speech?

Cause that's what they're doing

On April 29, FIRE wrote the city, explaining that the First Amendment protects charitable solicitation by organizations or by individuals seeking assistance for themselves, and calling on the city to repeal or amend the ordinance.

They're the free speech org, of course they're against government ordinance that suppresses unliked or unwanted speech.

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