site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   23426 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

However, Wikipedia only has one article on Alice Famousperson; it cannot simultaneously adhere to both trans-accepting and trans-rejecting standards. It cannot both include and exclude the fact that, prior to her transition, prior to anyone having heard of her, she was called Bob Nobody.

Just use ordinary standards for name changes.

Many Wiki-notable people both historical and current were changing their names and using pseudonyms during their lives, and Wiki policy deals with it.

For example, Henry McCarty, deadname of William H. Bonney, better known as Billy the Kid appears in his page.

Excepting name changes for gender identity reasons.

Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name, the former name should not appear in any page

Why? Would Billy the Kid suffer less pain and anguish if someone reminded him of his unglamorous Irish origins?

If a trans person was not notable before transitioning, their former name is of no interest to the public and there is no reason to include it, and a good reason – namely, courtesy – to exclude it. Note that the fact that they are trans is allowed to be included, since that is clearly of interest to the public.

In fact, Wikipedia is pretty consistent on this. The same courtesy is extended to, for example, the streamer Jerma985 whose real name you won't find anywhere in his article. It formerly contained a fake real name, which he presents as his real name, presumably to protect his privacy, but even that has now been removed.

This isn't the only instance of Wikipedia being courteous with respect to non-notable people or things people did before they became notable. One Wikipedia policy says:

Someone who does not wish to be the subject of a [biography article] may nominate it for deletion (...) Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is a current or former elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, and the subject being only minimally notable or notable for only one event.

In fact, Wikipedia is pretty consistent on this.

No, it isn't.

For example, Bill de Blasio is not entitled to the same courtesy, even when he was born as Warren Wilhelm he was not yet notable.

No one is worried that Bill might see his article, and become very sad when he is reminded of his dead name.

Bill de Blasio[a] (born Warren Wilhelm Jr., May 8, 1961) is an American former politician who served as the 110th mayor of New York City from 2014 to 2021. A member of the Democratic Party, he held the office of New York City Public Advocate from 2010 to 2013.

For another less notable but still Wiki notable case, wish of recently deceased Nicholas Alahverdian to be exclusively known as Arthur Knight is not respected too.

Nicholas Alahverdian (July 11, 1987 – June 25, 2026),[6][7][8] also known as Nicholas Rossi and Arthur Knight, among other aliases,[5] was an American sex offender and child welfare activist who faked his own death in 2020.

For example, Bill de Blasio is not entitled to the same courtesy, even when he was born as Warren Wilhelm he was not yet notable.

Have you read the article? He'd already started political campaigning at the time he changed his name.

No one is worried that Bill might see his article, and become very sad when he is reminded of his dead name.

Does he actually have a problem with people knowing his former name? Are his political opponents liable to passive-aggressively refer to him as "Warren Wilhelm Jr."?

The aforementioned Jerma985 made a clear effort to hide his real name, and that was respected.

For another less notable but still Wiki notable case, wish of recently deceased Nicholas Alahverdian to be exclusively known as Arthur Knight is not respected too.

Of course a criminal who changed his name repeatedly to commit fraud and escape prosecution is going to have all his aliases listed. How is this in any way comparable to a trans person whose only notable activity was done under their new name?

Here is another relevant policy I found:

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in non-media secondary sources, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than brief appearances in news stories. The appearance of names in citations, such as in newspaper headlines, is not restricted, but editors can consider finding alternative sources that do not use the name.[e] Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.[f] Names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name, the former name should not appear in any page

I don't think that that is too unreasonable of a compromise. Some trans advocates object to any mention of the birth name of a trans person even if they were famous under that name before they transitioned; they are just as welcome to make their own fork.

(It is my understanding that the reason so many trans individuals have such a desire to hide their deadnames is because some anti-trans persons, who have no compunction about respecting name changes in other circumstances, nevertheless insist on referring to Alice as 'Alan' as a subtle way of, every time they refer to her, calling her delusional or worse.

By way of analogy, imagine instead that Alice is a devout Catholic and Bob is a devout Protestant. Each sincerely believes that the other is factually wrong about fundamental aspects of reality, but if Alice doesn't want to talk about it, it is not considered polite for Bob to keep bringing it up when Alice has asked him to stop, and if Bob continuously referred to Alice as 'Alice, who worships a long-dead Babylonian queen, and is thus on a direct route to hell,' I think most people would agree that he was out of line.

The same principle applies if Alice is a trans woman and Bob is an adherent of the ideology which calls Alice a 'trans-identified male'; a lot of people outside the tribal cores would look askance at Bob if, every time he mentioned Alice, he called her 'Alice the delusional man in a dress who is probably some kind of pervert'; repeatedly calling her 'Alan' is, from the perspective of trans individuals and their sympathisers, an attempt to do the same thing with a minimal fig leaf of plausible deniability.)

By way of analogy, imagine instead that Alice is a devout Catholic and Bob is a devout Protestant.

We are not talking about personal etiquette in office or neighborhood, we are talking about official policy of world's encyclopedia of record.

Rather different things.

Imagine Encyclopedia Britannica had a rule to never ever mention that notable persons known for their Catholicism were ever in their life adherents of different religion. (in description of people of other religions or non religion, no such rule applies).

Wouldn't you find it a little strange, wouldn't this make you worry that famous objectivity and impartiality of Britannica might be compromised?

It is my understanding that the reason so many trans individuals have such a desire to hide their deadnames is because some anti-trans persons, who have no compunction about respecting name changes in other circumstances, nevertheless insist on referring to Alice as 'Alan' as a subtle way of, every time they refer to her, calling her delusional or worse.

But "this information could be used to harm someone" is not accepted by Wikipedia in most other contexts as a reason to not include information.

if Alice doesn't want to talk about it, it is not considered polite for Bob to keep bringing it up when Alice has asked him to stop, and if Bob continuously referred to Alice as 'Alice, who worships a long-dead Babylonian queen, and is thus on a direct route to hell,' I think most people would agree that he was out of line.

It is possible to talk normally about Alice without mentioning Alice's religion at all. It's not possible to talk normally about Alice without mentioning Alice's name.

If a trans person was not notable before transitioning, their former name is of no interest to the public and there is no reason to include it, and a good reason – namely, courtesy – to exclude it. Note that the fact that they are trans is allowed to be included, since that is clearly of interest to the public.

In fact, Wikipedia is pretty consistent on this. The same courtesy is extended to, for example, the streamer Jerma985 whose real name you won't find anywhere in his article. It formerly contained a fake real name, which he presents as his real name, presumably to protect his privacy, but even that has now been removed.

This isn't the only instance of Wikipedia being courteous with respect to non-notable people or things people did before they became notable. One Wikipedia policy says (emphasis mine):

Someone who does not wish to be the subject of a [biography article] may nominate it for deletion (...) Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is a current or former elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, and the subject being only minimally notable or notable for only one event.

It's not possible to talk normally about Alice without mentioning Alice's name.

But it is possible to talk normally about her without mentioning her previous name.

The reason that Bob doesn't have to refer to Alice's religion by a name that Alice doesn't like is that he doesn't have to refer to it at all. This is not true for Alice's name. Using Alice's preferred name is not remaining neutral; it's giving in. Alice's name, in the trans context, makes an implicit statement about Alice that Bob doesn't believe in and therefore doesn't want to say.

Using someone's objectively real, legal name does not entail accepting that they are their stated gender. Someone could change their name for non-trans-related reasons, and you would presumably accept that.

That the new name is typically one used by the opposite gender is irrelevant. If someone had a gender-inappropriate name because their parents are weird – a boy named Sue or one of the many girls nowadays given traditionally masculine names – you surely wouldn't object to that, either.

Using someone's objectively real, legal name does not entail accepting that they are their stated gender.

It sometimes does, depending on context. "It's their legal name" is not magic--there's no reason why a name can't be someone's legal name and still imply a falsehood.

If someone had a gender-inappropriate name because their parents are weird

If someone was given a gender-inappropriate name by their parents, the parents typically aren't making a false claim about gender, they are making a false claim about how appropriate the name is, which is different.

Exactly. How many of those who persistently refer to Alice as 'Alan', also refer to the thirty-eighth President of the United States as 'Leslie Lynch King', or the star of Hitchcock's North by Northwest as 'Archibald Leach'?

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