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.

If you and i are co-workers in a room together and you call Bruce Jenner an asshole and i don't agree with you then you've still committed a faux pas.

According to what principle?

Calling someone an asshole unprompted is rude. You failed to read the room and did so in front of someone who cares about that.

Calling someone an asshole unprompted is rude.

Ok, so it sounds like you are saying that the principle of "treat people how they would like to be treated" must sometimes yield to the principle of "don't be rude."

Do I understand you correctly? And if I do, what's your point? Are you asserting that it's "rude" to refer to Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) as a "he"? Or are you making some other point?

If you remember I was just contesting your point that if being nice is a reason to use someone's pronouns then being nice should also apply to how you treat someone who doesn't use someone's pronouns.

"Ok, so if a worker is having a conversation in the office and refers to "Bruce Jenner" and uses the word "he" to refer to this person, can we agree that it would not be "nice" -- and in fact it would be "mean" -- to criticize, shame, discipline or otherwise sanction this worker. Because it's better to treat the worker the way he wishes to be treated and Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room to be offended?"

If not using pronouns is rude then it is in fact acceptable to be rude back in general, whether the victim of the rudeness is present or not. That's my only point.

Whether using the wrong pronouns is rude or not is outside the scope of my argument. Just that your specific argument here is weak as you've framed it because courtesy is a tit for tat scenario. If someone is rude, you are now allowed to be rude to them.

That's the fundamental reason why trans-activists want it to be framed as a courtesy argument, because if they can frame it like that, then it is in fact acceptable to criticize or shame someone who is discourteous.

If you remember I was just contesting your point that if being nice is a reason to use someone's pronouns then being nice should also apply to how you treat someone who doesn't use someone's pronouns.

"Ok, so if a worker is having a conversation in the office and refers to "Bruce Jenner" and uses the word "he" to refer to this person, can we agree that it would not be "nice" -- and in fact it would be "mean" -- to criticize, shame, discipline or otherwise sanction this worker. Because it's better to treat the worker the way he wishes to be treated and Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room to be offended?"

If not using pronouns is rude then it is in fact acceptable to be rude back in general, whether the victim of the rudeness is present or not. That's my only point.

Whether using the wrong pronouns is rude or not is outside the scope of my argument. Just that your specific argument here is weak as you've framed it because courtesy is a tit for tat scenario. If someone is rude, you are now allowed to be rude to them.

That's the fundamental reason why trans-activists want it to be framed as a courtesy argument, because if they can frame it like that, then it is in fact acceptable to criticize or shame someone who is discourteous.

Ok, it sounds like you are saying that (1) it's "rude" to refer to Bruce Jenner (or whatever he calls himself (or herself or whatever)) as a "he"; and (2) this initial rudeness justifies criticizing or correcting the person who spoke this way.

Do I understand you correctly?

No, I am not saying it is rude to refer to Bruce Jenner as he. I am saying in the hypothetical it was being considered as rude (or mean or whatever). And the rest follows from that.

Personally I don't care if you call Bruce/Caitlyn he or she. But IF it is considered rude then the person being rude/mean in this way, cannot then demand they are treated nicely.

No, I am not saying it is rude to refer to Bruce Jenner as he. I am saying in the hypothetical it was being considered as rude (or mean or whatever).

I'm not sure if I understand this. Are you trying to fight my hypothetical here? Here is the original hypothetical:

Ok, so if a worker is having a conversation in the office and refers to "Bruce Jenner" and uses the word "he" to refer to this person, can we agree that it would not be "nice" -- and in fact it would be "mean" -- to criticize, shame, discipline or otherwise sanction this worker. Because it's better to treat the worker the way he wishes to be treated and Bruce Jenner (or whatever you want to call him) is not in the room to be offended?

Note that I said nothing at all about whether what the worker did is considered "rude."

Are you asserting that what the worker did was "rude"? Or are you assuming for the sake of discussion that it's considered "rude"?

"Going along with trans people's preferences constitutes being nice to them; misgendering them constitutes being mean to them"

This is the comment your hypothetical was built off.

So if misgendering is mean/rude then your worker is being rude/mean first and his preferences for people being nice to him are overridden by him throwing the first punch as it were.

If it isn't rude/mean to misgender then this does not apply, but then our hypothetical Jenner would not be offended whether present or not.

So your scenario must implicitly accept the framing from the comment you were replying too. That it is rude/mean to misgender. Your response was that it would also be mean to critique the person for misgendering.

But if misgendering is rude/mean then it isn't rude/mean to critique the worker in return. Someone being mean, allows you to be mean in return.

Make sense?

"Going along with trans people's preferences constitutes being nice to them; misgendering them constitutes being mean to them"

This is the comment your hypothetical was built off.

So if misgendering is mean/rude then your worker is being rude/mean first and his preferences for people being nice to him are overridden by him throwing the first punch as it were.

If it isn't rude/mean to misgender then this does not apply, but then our hypothetical Jenner would not be offended whether present or not.

So your scenario must implicitly accept the framing from the comment you were replying too. That it is rude/mean to misgender. Your response was that it would also be mean to critique the person for misgendering.

But if misgendering is rude/mean then it isn't rude/mean to critique the worker in return. Someone being mean, allows you to be mean in return.

Make sense?

Not really. Because -- significantly -- I was very clear that Bruce Jenner was NOT in the room.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that it's "mean" to "misgender" someone, are you saying that this applies to all conversations, discussions, etc. everywhere, public or private, regardless of whether the person who has been "misgendered" is present or otherwise privy to the conversation?

More comments

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