site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22308 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.

Those who seek to diminish the United States and the ideals espoused in the Declaration versus those who seek to embody and perpetuate them.

Donald, is that you?

Personally, I think that the US was founded on both good ideals (like freedom of speech, restricted government, democracy) and bad ideals (exploitation of non-citizens, territorial expansion). Plus a few which sounded reasonable at the time but did not really work out long-term (keeping military power in the hands of the citizens, the electoral college).

I very much cherish the good ideals of the US, and I credit the US with upholding these ideals when most of Europe was plunged into darkness, and spreading them in their sphere of influence (in Europe, at least).

I think that it is fair to say that most people on both sides of the culture war cherish these ideas at least to some degree (neither side is very committed to freedom of speech, for example). Both sides are in favor of democracy, at least if we disregard Trump's claim that the SAVE act will secure the Republican dominance for a hundred years as his usual empty boasting.

Recently there was a poll going around about how 55% of self-identified Democrats would prefer to live overseas,

It might be worthwhile to examine in which states they want to live, and on what ideals these nations are built. As you said, the US is built around ideas, not bloodlines or geography.

A US citizens who decides to emigrate to the Taliban, Belarus, North Korea, Saudi Arabia is arguably betraying the ideals on which the US is built. By contrast, emigrating to Canada or Germany involves no betrayal of fundamental American values in my opinion.

Anyone loyal to the good ideals of the US can by necessity only be loyal to the US as it exists in reality if the US does a good job of upholding these ideals. If she feels that another state does a better job of upholding these ideals, the natural response is to move. Obviously what precisely are the good ideals of the US is debatable as much as the present state of affairs.

By contrast, there are many 'patriots' on the right who seem to worship the trappings of the US more than the ideals. Who did not get turned off from the stars and stripes when W tortured suspects in gitmo under that very flag.

And then you have the flag-wavers who prefer the Confederate flag, who basically signal that the founding principle which they liked most about the US is the exploitation of non-citizens. I will take any draft-dodger who decided that fighting in Vietnam is not compatible with his understanding of the ideals on which the US was founded over them any day of the week.

A US citizens who decides to emigrate to the Taliban, Belarus, North Korea, Saudi Arabia is arguably betraying the ideals on which the US is built.

Likewise, DSA candidates should all be convicted of treason.

Anyone loyal to the good ideals of the US can by necessity only be loyal to the US as it exists in reality if the US does a good job of upholding these ideals.

"Men did not love Rome because she was great; Rome was great because men loved her."

The confederate flag in practice is mostly about pride in the White Southern identity(and White Southerners are an ethnic group whose culture is extraordinarily popular; the obesogenic food, sports, country music, lake culture... liberal comedians tell jokes about how much fun the whole thing is. One of the reasons Trump is able to win is because the secular version of this culture has a good time so reliably and it appeals to the common people). I don't dispute that blacks genuinely have a (understandably)negative reaction, but the white liberal elite mostly just doesn't like their cultural enemies; there won't be a symbol of White Southern culture which isn't controversial for that reason.

This reminds me of a Catholic blogger who wrote a four part article on why Catholics can and should fly the LGBT rainbow flag because it really symbolizes equal rights in employment and housing, and all gay sex stuff is incidental.

Not sure if this argues for or against your position, but it seems like someone should take the same sides of both flags to be consistent.

(I am skeptical of both flags )

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