site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   23551 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.

I think the assumption here would be that there are people who would basically go crazy and try to tear their skin off every time they looked in a mirror and saw Henry Cavil

There may be people like this, but I'm not. (But I'll make it even easier. If I woke up tomorrow morning and I was transformed into a 25 year old version of myself, I'd be delighted. ) This single counter example disproves the entire generalization.

Unless of course, what transgender really means is that the person desires to be the other gender. Which I strongly suspect is pretty close to the truth.

Nobody in this thread is saying it's universally true though. In fact lots of people, me included in the comment you're replying to, say that it isn't.

Nobody in this thread is saying it's universally true though.

I strongly disagree. Here's what the person had said:

A common argument is to ask the person you're arguing with, "If you woke up this morning and found you had been transformed into a stereotypical example of the opposite gender, how would you feel about that?" If you would prefer that to your current body, this means that you are transgender.

This person is clearly making a universal generalization. He doesn't say "this probably means that you are transgender" or "this might mean that you are transgender." Rather, he says "this means that you are transgender" without any qualification. Therefore a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove the entire argument.

But okay, obviously you are not on the hook to defend another person's argument. So let me ask you this:

Under what circumstances is it true that a desire (or preference) to "wake up as a woman," indicates that the individual is transgender?

A common argument is to ask the person you're arguing with, "If you woke up this morning and found you had been transformed into a stereotypical example of the opposite gender, how would you feel about that?" If you would prefer that to your current body, this means that you are transgender.

Hang on, how is this in contradiction? If you have a strong sense of gender perception, then the test works? If you don't have a strong sense of gender perception, it's unclear in what sense the concept of transgender even applies to you.

Hang on, how is this in contradiction? If you have a strong sense of gender perception, then the test works? If you don't have a strong sense of gender perception, it's unclear in what sense the concept of transgender even applies to you.

I have no idea what your point is here. The person is making an unqualified generalization. Therefore a single counter-example will suffice to disprove the generalization.

But "I think I would be fine with Henry Cavill's body" is not a counterexample to "if you feel dysphoria in Henry Cavill's body, you are transgender" at all, so I'm confused. Maybe lay out the exact generalization you mean?

Maybe lay out the exact generalization you mean?

The original argument was that if you are a man and you wake up as a woman and you are happy with the change, then you are transgender. I and another poster pointed out that this argument proves too much, for example if I wake up as a 25 year old and I am happy with the change, it doesn't say anything about my identity. So really I poked a hole in the broader implication of the argument, not the argument itself. But still the same principle applies.

Suppose someone argues "If A, then B." And it follows from their argument that "If C, then D." And you find a single example of NOT D following from C. That single example defeats the original "If A, then B"

The original argument was that if you are a man and you wake up as a woman and you are happy with the change

I think you misread that. The argument is the exact opposite: if you wake up (or imagine waking up) as a woman and feel dysphoria, you are now transgender. You can now tell that gender is real because you perceive that yours is wrong.

I think you misread that. The argument is the exact opposite: if you wake up (or imagine waking up) as a woman and feel dysphoria, you are now transgender. You can now tell that gender is real because you perceive that yours is wrong.

Here's the argument, or at least the part of the argument that I responded to:

A common argument is to ask the person you're arguing with, "If you woke up this morning and found you had been transformed into a stereotypical example of the opposite gender, how would you feel about that?" If you would prefer that to your current body, this means that you are transgender.

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