site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   23841 thread views

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

BRING BACK DUELING.

I think it should be legal to punch someone who is filming you without your consent. It's a similar violation of bodily integrity.

Go punch all software/firmware devs who spy on your phone.

I'd love to, if I could track them down.

wtf I hate freedom of speech now?

Bodily integrity? Maybe if you think that photographs steal your soul.

I can't go with a flat ban on filming people in public, nor punching people who are just recording generally.

However, if they are actually obstructing your attempts to just do your activities, or they are doing that silly "I'm not touching you!" game, then yeah, a physical response seems eminently 'reasonable.'

For places where this is a regular issue, I'd say Allow police officers to inflict corporal punishment as a summary procedure.

For places where this is a regular issue, I'd say Allow police officers to inflict corporal punishment as a summary procedure.

I'm watching a lot of youtubes of (US) police bodycams and man it's hard to argue otherwise. Of course, it's a biaised sample, but man does it seem unreasonably annoying to have to deal with someone who believes they are going to argue, refuse to comply their way out of a ticket and then physically resist and yell and twist their way out of an arrest. I think there might be some people who'd become more reasonable if they were clearly told by the police "if you do not shut up and comply, I am empowered to beat your ass".

There are also of course, police officers who seem to jump to every opportunity to claim battery on a law enforcement officer. I get that anything that can discourage resisting is probably good in the end, but resisting is already its own charge, it makes me lose some respect for the officers if they feel like a suspect lightly pushing back on them while resisting is them being "battered".

I'm also confused by how many people in the US seem to be driving without their license on them; what the fuck?

Yep.

A) Cops are apparently a lot more restrained than you might think given the stressors they often face. The exceptions are out there, of course.

B) We already trust cops with proper escalation of force, and they do an okay job at it. I don't see much reason to let them use their discretion to tase people vs. letting them just inflict a few strikes with the cane, following a modicum of process.

C) I think a lot of suspects might actually agree to take a beating on the spot vs. going through the full system's process where jail time would be on the table.

I think there might be some people who'd become more reasonable if they were clearly told by the police "if you do not shut up and comply, I am empowered to beat your ass"

Eh... I'm in favor of corporal punishment, but I think it needs to be adjudged, like all other forms of punishment. If you give that power to cops directly, you can be almost certain they'll get drunk on it.

I'm also confused by how many people in the US seem to be driving without their license on them; what the fuck?

It's not a big deal in Europe. You get fined, and you're adding an extra half hour to your detainment as they verify that you do, in fact, have a license, but otherwise it's not a problem.

That's how it is in most US states too. I've been pulled over for speeding and didnt have my license on me for some reason. The stop went exactly like any other traffic stop, except it took a few minutes for the cop to verify I did, in fact, have a valid license. He gave me my speeding ticket and a warning to not forget my license next time.

In New Jersey if you don't have your paperwork (especially insurance), the cops tow your car and leave you by the side of the road, any time, day or night. They did this even before cell phones were common.

Good to know. I've almost never had a non-expired insurance card on me in the car when pulled over (it's usually sitting in an opened envelope on my desk for months as I forget to replace the card), and I've alwayd gotten off with a warning. Though I admit I have always had unusually good luck/rapport with police officers who pull me over--immediately taking full responsibility for breaking the law, apologizing profusely for not having your documents organized, and making polite small talk goes a long way. (all of these stops would have been in Western states btw)

I'm also confused by how many people in the US seem to be driving without their license on them; what the fuck?

In most parts of the US, not driving is simply not an option. If you can’t get a license, then you just have to deal with your entire life being a continuous string of misdemeanor offenses.

Certainly not, and it's ridiculous to say so. Capturing a few of the photons bouncing off your body and clothes does not affect your bodily integrity in the slightest; if you have a reasonable objection to being filmed (in public), it must be something else.

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