site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 8, 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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Consensus building.

Not really. "We" here is a reference to the kind of blue-collar worker @Goodguy was talking about (i.e. someone who puts a lot of their identity into being the kind of person who works hard in a physically demanding job), a demographic which is underrepresented here. If @hydroacetylene's "we" is accurate and he is indeed a regular blue-collar guy, he is providing the Motte with useful information we wouldn't otherwise have access to.

Whenever we say "this thing is sacred, it shall not be traded for profane goods"

People who actually think sex has a sacred element don't just think it should not be traded for profane goods - they think it should not happen outside marriage at all (de jure) or with a narrow exception for relationships where the parties are ready, willing and able to be shotgun married (de facto).

Not really. "We" here is a reference to the kind of blue-collar worker @Goodguy was talking about (i.e. someone who puts a lot of their identity into being the kind of person who works hard in a physically demanding job), a demographic which is underrepresented here. If @hydroacetylene's "we" is accurate and he is indeed a regular blue-collar guy, he is providing the Motte with useful information we wouldn't otherwise have access to.

Ok, I missed that context.

To be clear, 'we' referred to more of a collective opinion of my coworkers/class peers/whatever.

Not really. "We" here is a reference to the kind of blue-collar worker @Goodguy was talking about (i.e. someone who puts a lot of their identity into being the kind of person who works hard in a physically demanding job), a demographic which is underrepresented here. If @hydroacetylene's "we" is accurate and he is indeed a regular blue-collar guy, he is providing the Motte with useful information we wouldn't otherwise have access to.

I mean, I think the objection holds because speaking for a hundred million people, of whom my learned friend @hydroacetylene is an atypical example, is pretty rich.

Fair, but I do think that I speak a tad bit better for the specific group of ‘normie red tribe blue collar maga’, which rarely sees prostitutes positively the way many people see athletes or rock stars, but also doesn’t hate them.

If he is a sufficiently atypical example that his views are not representative even when he thinks they are, that would be stolen valour (which while scurvy, is not moddable) rather than consensus-building.

I take @hydroacetylene's "we" seriously in the absence of evidence that he is not what he claims to be, and I would hope that my "we" is taken similarly seriously when I claim to speak on behalf of British liberals (in the British sense - the word has subtly different meanings in BrE and AmE). Given the unreliability of the MSM, the only ways the Motte gets to benefit from the perspectives of people who are not MAGA-supporting disgruntled grey tribers is to listen to the ones it has.

I don't think it's moddable, but I do think that mottizens should avoid using the "we" word, unless we're talking about weirdoes who frequent internet discussion boards.

FWIW I think the average normie laborer would find the idea of $10k/night hooker more intelligible than the idea of a $1000/hr lawyer or a $1,000,000,000 CEO or a $200k/yr HR director.