site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   10110 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 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.

Actually someone on X did a post on it. The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

To do this, Sweden would have to

  • Convert a proportional-to-population majority of the parliaments of Europe
  • Have those parliaments send representatives to PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) such that they have a bare majority
  • Have government put forth based judicial nominees to the ECHR and PACE approve then
  • Bring a case overturning all that precedent
  • Remigrate

In practice, there is no way for Sweden as a national unit, to accomplish this.

The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

Which is an excellent argument in favor of colonialism, if the ECHR actually had principles other than slow suicide.

Underrated retort

The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

Edit: Rewrote the post. Original version was too inflammatory.

Then Sweden should start influencing the court and the judges with what they have at their disposal. USA is already doing some stuff to Nicolas Guillou. If enough EU countries get fed up with ECHR and start putting serious pressure on the institution and staff eventually they will become more reasonable. At some point some pan European institutions will have to be subverted to be dealt with Europe problems. The pan European bodies are most at fault for them anyway.

Ya know, Ken White, of Popehat fame, just posted a lengthy, whiny screed about how ridiculous it is that Bluesky(!), of all places, gave him a timeout for saying someone should kill Elon Musk.

Must have been shocking to him that even Bluesky balks at calls for murder of your political enemies (when your enemies are, after all, objectively evil people who need to die to prevent more evil).

The Motte is not Bluesky. However, we still tend to draw the line at explicit calls for assassination. And no doubt if someone called for assassinating Elon Musk here, it would get lots of reports and downvotes.

We give people a long leash-- you can even Kulak-post about how violence is good, actually-- but specifically saying "kill these people" is getting pretty close to the sort of thing that could get Zorba served with a warrant, or whatever they do in Europe.

Don't do this.

Fair point. Rewrote to something hopefully more appropriate.

Can we not do this?

...or leave the ECHR. The Brits are already floating the idea...

Which would trigger an immediate shitstorm.

why?

Do you mean for Sweden or the UK?

That the UK left the EU but is still subject to the much dumber ECHR seems silly to begin with.

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