site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5640 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Many great artists did it at least in part for the money

I think part of the definition of art is that it's not done for money or status, but rather it's genuine self-expression. Art is often media, though not always, but most media is not art, it's entertainment, which is media made for money or clout. You speak of many great entertainers. Some of them were also artists, some of them were not. For example, did Shakespeare write his poetry for pay? I don't think so, so maybe it's art. But his plays are not. But they remain popular because he was a skilled entertainer. Speaking of narcissism, it's a symptom to morph entertainment consumption into art appreciation. Most people might not be able to enjoy art, because all they can enjoy is entertainment. But that's okay.

Some art is improved by money or outside interaction, some is made worse. Art for Art’s sake isn’t a popular take with the postmodernists. To say Art must not be done for any concern of money or status rules out stuff like the Sistine Chapel, The Last Supper, and Guernica. Where does that leave stuff like Andy Warhol or literally every architect for all time. We can go on for a while. You can certainly define Art that way, but we are squarely in a Wittgensteinian argument concerning a non-central usage of Art.

It's a subtle definition in that it's not that it can't be funded or become popular, but that whatever component of a work is done for money or status is not art, it's just labor. Many works are a combination of labor and art. The ones you mention might be half art, half labor, a Marvel movie might be all labor, but the purist art is done with complete disregard for money or status. Sometimes it still becomes popular, but that's improbable and it's suspicious when it happens.

This definition isn't non-central, if you don't use it, I don't get how b2b saas isn't art.

I think part of the definition of art is that it's not done for money or status, but rather it's genuine self-expression.

As good a definition as any, but it’s not mine and I don’t make that distinction. Indeed, I think the increasing tendency to force a distinction between ‘art’ and ‘entertainment / media’, rather than between ‘high-status/cultured art’ and ‘popular art’ has been leading people astray. My sympathies have always been with the jobbing writer and I’ve never had much use for self-expression except as a tool. I just want to make nice things that people like.

Self expression seems core to art, but if you just want to make nice things for high status people which makes you famous, you just want a corporate job with some vanity attached, honestly. Where's the self expression, the truth, the beauty, etc? It's just a commodity no different from a b2b saas.

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