site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11d ago (text post)   22982 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.

Sure. But you don't know you in particular are going to get cancer, or that by abstaining from smoking you won't get cancer anyway. You don't know how having cancer will feel in a subjective sense. You don't know what else might happen that might obviate all downsides of cancer; maybe you're destined to die before any negative health effects would arrive and smoking would be a pure net-positive for you. All of these can "support" the absurd claim that one's decision to smoke three packs a day was not sufficiently "informed", if one's reasoning is motivated. And as I've argued a number of times before, all reason is motivated.

Sure. But we can pretty confidently say that smoking increases your chances of getting cancer versus the counterfactual. Putting your life savings on black doesn't guarantee that you'll lose them, but I'm pretty comfortable saying that you're informed that it's a possibility. Arguing against this feels like sophistry.

Do you recognize that Good and Evil exist,

Probably.

the difference between them is comprehendible by humans

Based on the number of societies in human history doing absolutely heinous shit and considering it to be normal or even moral, I'm not sure about this. In fact I suspect there's very few societies that don't involve something I consider horrifically evil until fairly recently. And even then I'm not sure.

they have important consequences for humans engaging in them?

Unclear. I'm pretty confident that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Perhaps there is a settling of accounts in the hereafter, but that's the whole question, isn't it?

Based on the number of societies in human history doing absolutely heinous shit and considering it to be normal or even moral, I'm not sure about this. In fact I suspect there's very few societies that don't involve something I consider horrifically evil until fairly recently. And even then I'm not sure.

Why would you expect a human society to not feature heinous evil? Why would humans frequently engaging in heinous evil reduce your confidence that Evil exists as a useful concept and is recognizable by humans?

Unclear. I'm pretty confident that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.

Obviously.

But we can pretty confidently say that smoking increases your chances of getting cancer versus the counterfactual.

Can we confidently say that evil leads to misery, and good leads to happiness, even if this is not the case in every microscopic section of the causal chain that we can directly observe, yes?

@Jiro

I recognize that some kinds of things are evil, but religion calls many things evil that I don't recognize as such.

I am asking for a recognition that some kinds of things are in fact evil, not an agreement of any particular religion's listing of what those things are.

For the things you recognize as evil, what makes them evil? What does it mean for a thing to be evil?

I am asking for a recognition that some kinds of things are in fact evil, not an agreement of any particular religion's listing of what those things are.

The point is that saying you've "chosen" to "separate from God" is a cheat, since you can't meaningfully "choose" something you don't know about. If some things are recognizeable as evil, but others aren't, that doesn't help the argument unless only the recognizeable things are said to be "choices". No version of Christianity that claims you "chose" to go to Hell limits it to things that I can actually recognize are evil.

Why would humans frequently engaging in heinous evil reduce your confidence that Evil exists as a useful concept and is recognizable by humans?

People doing heinous stuff and considering it morally acceptable pretty directly implies that people have difficulty recognizing good and evil. Either that, or they are right and I'm having difficulty. Not looking good either way for this argument.

Can we confidently say that evil leads to misery, and good leads to happiness, even if this is not the case in every microscopic section of the causal chain that we can directly observe, yes?

I think doing evil to those who can retaliate or doing evil that others recognize as evil (thus leading to some kind of retaliation) can result in misery. You can do all the evil you want to everyone else with no obvious result in misery as far as I can tell, at least as long as you don't see what you do as evil yourself.

For the things you recognize as evil, what makes them evil? What does it mean for a thing to be evil?

I don't have a totally complete moral framework, but I sort of operate off a mishmash of utilitarianism and virtue ethics. So an evil act is one that is not virtuous or leads to an overall decrease in welfare.

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