site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24368 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 15, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Many moons ago, in the before times, in the waywayback a much younger and angrier JTarrou left his tiny cult in a tiny town in the midwest and went off to college. There was a lot of culture shock to go around, but mostly it was my first exposure to a primarily leftist environment. I knew more about politics than I did culture, and clashed repeatedly with professors and other students over these differences. Those who have spent time here will no doubt be shocked by this.

But it was an interesting time. The hectoring years of high-tide PC had ebbed in the late '90s, and by 1999 the pendulum was swinging the other way. A brand new show, low budget, seemingly intentionally poorly produced attempted to ride the zeitgeist on Comedy Central. The opening scene of the very first episode began like this:

Behold the Hoover Dam. 6.6 million tons of concrete, harnessing nearly a trillion gallons of water. 16,000 men spent half a decade building it. They lived in shacks and tents along its base without drinking water, toilets, or shelter from the desert heat. More than a hundred of these men gave their lives to this dam. Their bodies are paved over in its walls. Its 2 million kilowatt capacity powers the greatest city in the world, Las Vegas. And just as these heroic men did more than 60 years ago, we are building a dam. A dam to hold back the tidal wave of feminization that is flooding this country. A dam to stop the river of estrogen that is drowning us in political correctness. A dam to urinate off of when we're really drunk. We call this dam... The Man Show.

These words were spoken by an edgy young comedian in his first TV hosting gig. One Jimmy Kimmel. When you've lived long enough to see Jimmy go from an early-30s masculinist rebel against the politically correct orthodoxy to its most sold-out shill on late night, you have to take the culture war with a grain of salt. Take this little tale as a warning, if any of that sounds familiar.

Politics is a game for grifters. If you play long enough, you'll see the tides of lies rolling back and forth. Do not trust the people. Do not trust the parties. Do not trust the policies. It is all kabuki, and not even played for us.

hen you've lived long enough to see Jimmy go from an early-30s masculinist rebel against the politically correct orthodoxy to its most sold-out shill on late night, you have to take the culture war with a grain of salt.

As a side note, I've wondered more than once how Jimmy Kimmel was accepted by the Left given the Man Show. I remember that in most episodes, there was a segment called "Women on Trampolines" which showed women in skimpy outfits jumping on trampolines. The point was that their little skirts would flip up and give a nice view of what was underneath. Which I enjoyed watching as a young man but it's just hard to see how feminists (which are a significant part of the Left coalition) would forgive this.

Politics is a game for grifters.

I basically agree, I think it's a classic Moloch type situation where there is a big advantage (and therefore a selection effect) in favor of people willing and able to engage in sociopathic levels of lying, cheating, intellectual dishonesty, etc.

As another side note, though, I am pretty sure that Jimmy's former sidekick, Adam Carolla, is a conservative commentator now.

The point was that their little skirts would flip up and give a nice view of what was underneath.

That was not my primary focal point while viewing, but YMMV

That was not my primary focal point while viewing, but YMMV

I guess they had something for everyone.

Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

As long as the flip flop stays, it all works out for everyone in the end.

I think your model of these “coalitions” is wrong.

Single-issue voters join a coalition to buy support for their issue. In exchange, they’ve got to provide their support to other issues when those ones are relevant.

Yes, debating what qualifies as “relevant” makes up a substantial portion of internal politics. No, feminism does not automatically dominate every such debate within left-leaning organizations. Your outgroup is not homogenous.

Kimmel’s history on this particular show hasn’t been relevant. If it were, I’m sure people would come out of the woodwork to share unflattering clips and say how they always knew he was a boor, or whatever. Up until that point, they’re supposed to evaluate stuff on the more relevant issues, like “does he joke about the right people?” and “do people recognize the name?”

A digression: are you familiar with Texas AG Ken Paxton? Wife divorced him for repeated cheating. Just won the GOP primary for U.S. Senate against a 24-year incumbent.

Do you find it hard to see how evangelicals, a significant part of the Texas Republican coalition, could forgive him?

In a vacuum, I expect evangelicals would rather have had Paxton-but-faithful over Paxton-the-dirty-cheater. But they assessed his marriage status wasn’t the relevant bit, so they deferred to the name recognition and the Trump endorsement. This is business as usual in the awkward, messy process of forming a coalition.

Cornyn lost hard because he's an old fucker who's been in congress too long and voted for gun control. Not the Trump endorsement(which wasn't offered to Paxton before it was a sure thing).

No, feminism does not automatically dominate every such debate within left-leaning organizations.

Agreed, every coalition represents a compromise among competing interests. And I'm not surprised at all that feminists chose to disbelieve the early accusations of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton. Nor am I surprised that feminists (largely) choose to ignore alleged rapes by Hamas militants in the October 7 attacks. Or alleged mistreatment of women by the government of Iran.

What's interesting to me about Kimmel, though, is that it doesn't seem like he is a particularly vital part of the Left. It's not like he is a longstanding Democratic congressman with lots of seniority and a key vote on some divisive issue. He's just a hack comedian.

A digression: are you familiar with Texas AG Ken Paxton?

No I am not.

Do you find it hard to see how evangelicals, a significant part of the Texas Republican coalition, could forgive him?

Not at all. And that's even assuming that evangelicals are just as intolerant of alleged marital infidelity as feminists are of "objectification."

Yeah, Adam never really worked in hollywood again after that, and Jimmy got a late night slot. Adam was a very early podcaster, I believe, and has always been conservative in a centrist blue collar way.

I rewatched the first episode of the Man Show recently, which is why I posted this. What surprised me in retrospect was how not-skimpy most of the trampoline outfits were. Some were in bikinis, and there were plenty of panty shots, but the actual clothing was stuff that you could see in church, more or less. Schoolgirl outfits with knee-length skirts. Long-sleeve sweater combos. It seems like a very old concept of "skimpy".

Some were in bikinis, and there were plenty of panty shots, but the actual clothing was stuff that you could see in church, more or less. Schoolgirl outfits with knee-length skirts. Long-sleeve sweater combos. It seems like a very old concept of "skimpy".

I mean, those are all sexualized, is the thing. It's something for every taste.

"Women walk the streets, their curves accentuated by their dresses," Superintendent of Police Harvey J. Scott said. "But our real problem is with bobby soxers. They are the sweater girls—just kids showing off their curves and apparently liking it. What kind of mothers and wives are they going to be?"

I'm not hip to what the modern version would be.

but the actual clothing was stuff that you could see in church, more or less. Schoolgirl outfits with knee-length skirts. Long-sleeve sweater combos. It seems like a very old concept of "skimpy".

Perhaps I am not remembering accurately, and perhaps "skimpy" isn't the right word, but I'm pretty confident that (1) you (meaning the viewer) would see a lot more than you would ordinarily see in a church; (2) that was kind of the point; and (3) feminists generally object (so to speak) to this sort of material.

What surprised me in retrospect was how not-skimpy most of the trampoline outfits were. Some were in bikinis, and there were plenty of panty shots, but the actual clothing was stuff that you could see in church, more or less. Schoolgirl outfits with knee-length skirts. Long-sleeve sweater combos. It seems like a very old concept of "skimpy".

Therein lies hoeflation. Female outfits have generally gotten thottier over time.

People actually have less sex than ever and the younger generations of neurotic women probably dress less revealingly than they used to as it's become a status symbol to be in a relationship even if you try not to be appealing (I believe that is what a "Pick-Me" or whatever is)

A "pick me" is what people used to derisively refer to as "the cool girl," where her personality revolves around what she thinks will be appealing to men. Basically you're allowed to look feminine or you're allowed to hang out with the boys playing video games, but doing both makes you a pick-me traitor to womanhood. The female equivalent to the male feminist reading Andrea Dworkin to get laid.

There has to be a hard physical limit to hoeflation eventually, right? Thongs as casualwear? The human body can't go above 100% exposed, surely.

Unless the inside of mouths, noses, and other bodily cavities become parts of sexual interest. If 100% outside nakedness becomes the norm, then it stands to reason that women's dental gumlines become hidden fetish zones.

There has to be a hard physical limit to hoeflation eventually, right? Thongs as casualwear? The human body can't go above 100% exposed, surely.

Well there could be a sort of asymptotic hoeflation. I mean, if a woman goes from 95% exposed to 97% exposed, the difference is very noticeable to men.

I tend to find lingerie to be much more sexualising than just complete nudity. A body is in the end just a body. But with the right clothes you signal that it is a sex object.

So I would oppose your statement and assert that 100% nudity is not the end point. Clothes and makeup that deliberately try to show off and sexualise are, and we still have a long way to go on that front.

Hoeflation doesn’t necessarily have to be conducted only through revealing the body but can also be achieved through augmentations of the body itself. On the extreme end of this, think of the women who utilise surgeries and fillers and gaudy makeup to accentuate everything to the point that they look terrifying and emotionless and I’m not sure any man finds them even remotely attractive.

Though now that you’ve mentioned it, it would be very funny to see some episode of some adult TV show take this idea and just run with it, where the thotting goes so far that it becomes downright grotesque and your average woman 100 years in the future aspires to being a Cronenbergian body horror.

aspires to being a Cronenbergian body horror.

We're already there. Dodgy illegal buttimplants because (and this is mostly black women doing it for some reason) you can never have enough butt volume apparently. And some of them do that ugly lip filler thing that makes them look like blow up dolls, I still can't fathom who actually likes looking at that.

Ah, I forgot about body augmentation. It's just a matter of time before we have the triple breast augmentations, Total Recall style.

Well, in Total Recall, it was genetic mutations due to living on Mars (no idea what the actual mechanism was - the UV rays or the limited oxygen or both?)? That woman was just intelligent enough to make use of her genetic luck. Though perhaps if Elon has his way, we'll be able to run the actual experiment of human colonists on Mars, to see if we get such positive results soon enough. Everyone was joking about Elon Musk making catgirls real (which I could also see as a future body augmentation for similar purposes), but his true contribution to humanity may end up being making triple-breasted whores real.

I will build this man a real life shrine complete with tripple breasted bronze statues if this happened within my lifetime.

The canonical example is Julia Roberts's outfit in Pretty Woman, where she plays a literal prostitute. Her outfit looks downright chaste compared to the modern thot.

Women on Trampolines

Girls Jumping On Trampolines.

My mom saw me watching that once (I'd have been 17 probably) and got angry and demanded to know how I'd feel if it were my sister jumping on the trampoline.

I told her I wouldn't be interested in watching my sister, but these women were not my sister. We looked at each other for a bit and then she left.

Were these different than the juggies?

Yeah the juggies were part of the main show shot before a studio audience, whereas the girls jumping on trampolines were filmed separately and then just spliced in as a segment. Though for all I know there was substantial overlap between the two groups.

And did you also have your breakfast that morning? 🤣 Some seem to think this was a killer retort to frumpy old Mom who had to retreat defeated, but I don't think so.

You'll note that I answered her hypothetical before pointing out that it wasn't relevant.

My mom saw me watching that once (I'd have been 17 probably) and got angry and demanded to know how I'd feel if it were my sister jumping on the trampoline.

It's interesting to me how women get so upset (seemingly instinctively) about inexpensive male sexual gratification. I think all this talk about "objectification," "exploitation," etc. is for the most part a rationalization. The real issue (I strongly suspect) is that (1) throughout our evolutionary history and continuing to this day, women have depended on male services for their literal survival; (2) men gladly provide those services in exchange for female validation and sexual services; and (3) anything which threatens to undercut this relationship is therefore perceived as a mortal threat to women and provokes anger, outrage, etc.

Women pride themselves on their kids behaving well. That's what it is. Grandma lives longer and is happier when her kids are well behaved(filial piety very much included). Being a mom also tends to make women more socially conservative, especially about sex.

Women pride themselves on their kids behaving well. That's what it is. Grandma lives longer and is happier when her kids are well behaved(filial piety very much included). Being a mom also tends to make women more socially conservative, especially about sex.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose instead of catching her son watching the Man Show, mom catches her daughter watching some piece of media which features men. (Pro wrestling maybe?) Will she be similarly upset? Will she say "How would you feel if it were your brother who was being featured?" I tend to doubt it.

inexpensive male sexual gratification

Because it's not inexpensive. See the term "thots" being tossed about in the comments. Gratify male sexuality, be classed as degraded female only good for One Thing (and that's not marriage and children).

Don't forget rake in lots of cash.

Surely his mother can't be concerned that those women gratifying his sexuality affects how he classifies his mother.

Why not? Mom doesn't have sex, we all know our parents never had sex and have no idea what that is all about but we are so modern and liberated and know what sex is all about. If he had to think of his mother in the context of a sexual being, that would be uncomfortable. The point about "but it's not my sister" is the same as "but I did have my breakfast this morning". He can't see the girls on the television as people, they're just there as the framework to which the things he is interested in - bouncing boobs, ass, maybe a hint of more private parts - is attached, they're not persons in their own right.

The idea that guys really were watching a show just for the segment of hoping to see a young woman flash her pudenda for a fraction of a moment is depressing in one way. I mean, it's nature, this is what drives us all, so of course it was marketed and monetised as much as the censors would let them get away with, but if the guy in question never matures out of that attitude, then yeah: gosh why aren't women getting married to men who think of them as a disparate collection of parts to jerk off to, what a puzzle.

Gratify male sexuality, be classed as degraded female only good for One Thing (and that's not marriage and children).

Surely his mother can't be concerned that those women gratifying his sexuality affects how he classifies his mother.

Why not?

Because boys don't see their mothers as only good for One Thing, even if they do realize that their parents have, or at least had, sex. It would be difficult I'm confused why this isn't obvious.

If he had to think of his mother in the context of a sexual being, that would be uncomfortable.

Well, yes.

The point about "but it's not my sister" is the same as "but I did have my breakfast this morning". He can't see the girls on the television as people, they're just there as the framework to which the things he is interested in - bouncing boobs, ass, maybe a hint of more private parts - is attached, they're not persons in their own right.

I never cease to be amazed at how sure you are of your kneejerk imaginings, while also refusing to listen to anyone who tries to help correct you. Once again I'll just say openly that I don't even know why you're here, except that you seem to get a lot of sick enjoyment out of hysterically, but inappropriately, reacting to people who aren't even saying what you'd love to hate them to be saying.

Here you've pattern-matched to a meme that is not applicable (I considered and answered the hypothetical before pointing out it wasn't pertinent) and completely ass-pulled the part about not seeing attractive women as 'persons in their own right'. In fact I do see attractive women as people, and also enjoy looking at them sexually. You're consistently straightforward in admitting that you don't understand this experience at all, so it's just wild to me that you're willing to baselessly impute the worst possible motive to others without any leg to stand on whatsoever.

I award you a downvote and may God have mercy on your soul.

Your mother left the room because she realised that to you, "girls not my sister = collection of parts for my sexual gratification" and not persons. You didn't think of them as someone's daughter or sister or a classmate or work colleague, you thought of the girls on the trampoline as things to get your bits aroused.

  • -10
More comments

The endless kvetching about men perceiving women as sex objects when they choose to present themselves as sex objects is always quite amusing. The idea that one should be taking umbrage on behalf of the women even when objectification was their goal is downright incomprehensible to me. People appear to believe that when a woman dresses skimpily and gives everyone involuntary panty shots it should somehow have no effect on how anyone thinks of her, no matter how shamelessly she is advertising her services, and woe betide the man who dares to notice since it's clearly just a failure on his part to Appreciate Her Personhood enough.

And it is only male attraction that is to be judged in this way, of course. That doesn't apply to a woman rubbing one out to a picture of David Beckham.

but if the guy in question never matures out of that attitude, then yeah: gosh why aren't women getting married to men who think of them as a disparate collection of parts to jerk off to, what a puzzle.

If you have created lewd content of yourself and disseminated it into the commons for money or other gain, you are advertising yourself as being willing and able to fulfil a certain need, and people who stumble upon that will view you in that context. Seriously the quoted statement above is about as intellectually sound as saying that I don't view bus drivers as Fully Realised People because I'm not interested in the minutiae of my bus driver's internal life and see him as a tool whose purpose is primarily to take me from point A to point B. People interact with others differently in different contexts. Yes, in a context where someone is advertising or providing services to me I am seeing them primarily instrumentally through the lens of what they are offering me, that doesn't mean I would not be capable of viewing and approaching them in any other manner with a different goal in mind if I were to encounter them in other contexts (say, in a social setting). That’s normal human psychology, not a pathology, but if women want to opt out of relationships for that reason then that is their choice.

Oh, I'm not saying the girls weren't foolish to do that. But the people benefiting from that were the men running the show and the TV network, not the girls themselves. And they got themselves the reputation among the men watching them as nothing more than wank fodder. Now maybe "My angel is a centerfold" is a true representation of a man's view of such women, that he would be delighted to date her and not think less of her and would still treat her with respect as wife material instead of "woo-hoo, I get to bang the thot".

And maybe not.

More comments

It's interesting to me how women get so upset (seemingly instinctively) about inexpensive male sexual gratification.

Historically, not just women. Men were on board for the Victorian-era campaign against Onanism, for example. Feminism is now the only socially acceptable reason for people to be prudes, but I don't think it is the only (or even the main) reason why people were prudes historically.

Historically, not just women. Men were on board for the Victorian-era campaign against Onanism, for example.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that a Victorian-era father discovered that his son and some buddies had gone to a tableaux vivant show or sexy burlesque show. Would he be instinctively upset about the situation? I tend to doubt it.

I mean, one need only look at the highly religious today to see how fathers react to these sorts of things. I know that if I went to a burlesque (or the modern equivalent) and my dad found out, his reaction would be some mix of disappointment, disgust, and anger. And my reaction would be the same if I had a son do the same.

To be fair I've never seen any 'burlesque' that didn't consist entirely of glaringly-unattractive women, and that per se would be enough to have me disappointed and disgusted in my hypothetical son. Overlooking the lack of talent among the 'dancers' due to some kind of sick fascination with the aesthetic scans to me as similar to an extreme foot fetish or unhealthy obsession with The Rocky Horror Picture Show or something. Not something you want to see surface in your child.

I mean, one need only look at the highly religious today to see how fathers react to these sorts of things

I tend to disagree with this. People who are highly religious have, generally speaking, been trained to adhere to certain values. Therefore, the reaction of a highly religious father is not necessarily representative of the reaction of fathers in general.

My hypothesis is that women instinctively get upset when men receive inexpensive sexual gratification. Therefore, it (arguably) doesn't matter if the woman is a progressive, religious, or whatever. Only if she has been trained to be sex positive will she stay calm. Even then, it won't take much to convince her that inexpensive sexual gratification for men is exploitative or otherwise destructive.

Admittedly, I don't have rigorous evidence to support this hypothesis, but it does seem to fit observable reality pretty well.

Yes, the reaction is equivalent to how the highly progressive mothers react to these sorts of things, because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good. (One might even say that the highly religious father is the exact spear counterpart.)

It's really not any more complicated than that. You just get butthurt you can't control sex because that's what your primate brain tells you is important, so out come the rationalizations. Oh no, a female leg, so scandalous.

Yes, the reaction is equivalent to how the highly progressive mothers react to these sorts of things, because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good.

I would say it depends on which sect and which religion. But I do agree that a lot of Christian churches in the West have gone in for gynocentrism. For gynocentrists, inexpensive male sexual gratification is a problem. Because everything is supposed to be about women. The purpose of men is to serve women and it's a problem if a man has independent desires and needs which get met without serving women.

More comments

because they're both in complete agreement that man bad, woman good

My dad (and myself) don't agree with this though? We both would disapprove of both attending a burlesque show and performing in one. "Man and woman both bad, unless they turn to God and repent" would be our view.

You just get butthurt you can't control sex because that's what your primate brain tells you is important, so out come the rationalizations.

Oh wow, tell me more about what I actually believe and why using your mystical evo-psych bullshit powers, please!

More comments

Burlesque is a social activity at least, while locking yourself in your room alone with sexy paintings is not.

Also, if you're a mother, then in evolution terms you want your son to have baby-making sex, not watch porn.

Given how unaccessible porn was until less than a century ago, it seems rather doubtful that there was much evolutionary pressure for such an impulse during most of human existence (evolutionary psychology is always really hard, but I'd guess that, during most of human existence, a man observing nubile young women enthusiastically in states of undress was more correlated with them reproducing rather than less), and so I'd doubt that whatever evolutionary source for TitaniumButterfly's mother's behavior has anything to do with that explanation. I'd guess that the proximal cause of the mother's behavior had to do with cultural norms, which are downstream from evolutionary pressures of the type that omw_68 mentioned.

I reckon during most of human existence, nubile young women were in a state of undress as a regular thing and so did not particularly correlate with anything.

The majority of human beings that have ever lived have been peasant farmers, and this has heavily selected human cognition, dietary needs, appearance, etc. And we kinda know how peasant farmers lived- seeing naked members of the opposite sex, except perhaps immediate family, was not normal(the same sex on the other hand...). I would kinda expect moms getting upset at their son's porn use or whatever to be more about 'oh shit is he a threat to his sister' than anything about female solidarity.

'oh shit is he a threat to his sister' than anything about female solidarity.

They're the same picture, and I can assure you that this reaction happens even in porn-free households.

More comments

Quite possibly! Again, evolutionary psychology is just inherently hard to get right. Though there's states of undress and states of undress, and the types of videos we're talking about is the latter, I'd say.

Mom mad (x24).

Impressive poise by teenaged @TitaniumButterfly (TitaniumChrysalis?) under duress, to calmly swat away the attempt at getting blamed for the female love of being sex objects.

Angry mother: “How would you feel if that were your sister jumping on the trampoline?”

Chad son: “But that wasn’t my sister.”

*Defeated mother leaves*

For all the people on here laughing about the low IQ types who can't figure out the question "How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning/But I did eat breakfast", you don't seem to recognise Butterfly was failing the exact same way.

Mom was not defeated, just disappointed. "The female love of being sex objects"? And didn't our Butterfly go on about how this was "inexpensive" gratification of male sexuality? This must mean that the guy doesn't incur any expense, the girls do in reputational harm and comments about how they're all thots, look how they love being sex objects.

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