site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23696 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.

What is she doing here?

Sounding the alarm about the machinations of [[[Insidious Hibernia]]]. I dare say @2rafa may be the only real white man left on this board.

Yes, we are Insidious, aided by our Machiavellian Italian co-religionists, our dour but doughty Polish co-religionists, the Bavarians (are they even proper Germans?), the French (well, what is there to say about the frogs that has not been said before?) and the gloomy, blood-drunken Spanish all of whom you foolishly permitted to immigrate to the unspotted virgin territory of the USA! Bwa-ha-ha, too late, too late!!!!

May the Christian Lord guide my hand against your ROMAN POPERY!

I want to see this conversation happen in a supermarket car park, with both parties in full regalia and at top volume...

There is a type of post that essentially goes: “All of the people behind this particular bad thing that happened are Jewish. Let’s unpack that,” but 2rafa wrote the post about Catholics instead.

I noticed the irony on my first read-through, but the thought that it was a bit never occurred to me. I still don’t think it’s a bit, but it certainly apes the style.

Sometimes they don't think it be like it is, but it do. And the group characterised in that style of post is irrelevant, all of them can behave in a collective manner when their actions are bourn of shared religion/memes/ideals.

I worry about our mods sometimes. Dealing with our nonsense has to be a serious infohazard.

Perhaps we might crowdfund some kind of retreat for them, or at least encourage the occasional rotating sabbatical.

As a Catholic I think her critique of Catholicism on US political institutions is a fair take. Why did Peronism, Franco, or Mussolini rise up in their respective Catholic countries but no such characters in English countries except for FDR after a lot of Catholic migration.

The main difference between Jews and Catholics is your allowed to criticize the Catholics and notice how their institutions and influence always seem to have certain characteristics but you are not allowed to do this with the Jews.

I think Joh Bjelke-Petersen (Premier of Queensland 1968-87) was a national populist in that mold, and he was from Protestant (Danish) stock. But I agree that the Anglosphere was historically (but sadly no longer) mostly immune to it.

It’s not entirely unserious, I have to say.

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