site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22418 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.

This comment is bad faith. You are following me between threads. Are you sneering at my messages in a Discord somewhere waiting to point out perceived inconsistencies between threads or something? Because it's not just you and these comments aren't exactly wracking up tons of organic views.

Anyway, what I meant by saying society is made up, is that there is no super entity that can be endowed with joint feelings that you owe. Therefore you cannot say it is possible to go behind society's back, or for society to decide something, in the same way that a family can coordinate. Obviously, there exists sets of people. Cheating and mass immigration effect the set of legacy American families and people, each individually in a bad way. Whereas a 25 year old dating a 17 year old effects no one in a bad way.

You are following me between threads. Are you sneering at my messages in a Discord somewhere waiting to point out perceived inconsistencies between threads or something? Because it's not just you and these comments aren't exactly wracking up tons of organic views.

"Discord cliques could be here", he thought. "I've never been this deep in a thread before. There could be Discorders anywhere."

As someone who isn't following you across threads and just saw this comment on the firehose view: once you start sensing private sneering Discords in your walls, you've reached the level of an imageboard schizo who believes that any pushback on [insert hobby horse here] can only ever come from paid, astroturfed, structured opposition too dreadfully big for him to fight. I suppose the probability of a, ahem, sneer club existing isn't literally zero, but it is so close to zero that it's barely worth suffering the (considerable, I might note) aura loss of pointing out, especially on an obscure Colombian bucket welding forum such as this one. Come off it, man. This is virtually never an argument that helps your case, it just scans as defensive reaching for whatever accusations you can muster, for lack of actual arguments.

Bro, their arguments are just a fallacy and whining. I'm not on the defensive substantively. Meanwhile they are, like, the exact same type of poster phenotype, totally the kind to have some kind of sneer group going. It's super autistic actually to believe in atomization to the point where you think sensing a discord group is insane paranoia. Have you never used discord? or had a group chat?

Have you never used discord? or had a group chat?

I have, but I don't screenshot randos I'm talking to online and share it out of the blue like "look at this retard" or something, nor do any of my friend groups to my knowledge. My point and reason for my reply is that complaining about X-cords being out in force and confidently asserting that the thread is being raided, that the poasting is inorganic, that they're Nooticing etc. is a very common pastime - and yet in all the years of using imageboards I haven't seen even a shred of meaningful evidence to those malicious coordinated sneer 'cords actually existing. Absolutely none. Barely even any screenshots which by all accounts should both be trivial to produce, and give the shitposter the warm fuzzies of sekrit clubbiness and being In The Know. The "malicious coordinated action" is always, always just mythical use of free will by sufficiently deranged singular posters, amply demonstrated by the occasions when a janny deigns to ban a single schizoposter's IPs and like half of a thread disappears instantly. It's not more complicated than that.

they are, like, the exact same type of poster phenotype, totally the kind to have some kind of sneer group going.

See this is the kind of thing you start sensing when you dig your heels in too deep, they're totally the kind to stalk me, bro, totally laughing in their 'cord right now, trust me bro. Is this supposed to be an argument, purely because (again) the possibility is not literally zero? If anything "heh that's just %fallacy_name%" smacks more of Redditposting than the uh, poster phenotypes on display here.

It's not that deep bro. A discord is not a conspiracy theory.

I brought up the exact same example you use, i.e the supposed existence of dedicated sneer discords. The line of (transparently motivated) reasoning that brings you to consider it is likewise the same in both cases, you even explicitly spelled it out - they're just the kind of people to do it, trust me bro. I simply point out how that ~never happens in practice and how your defense is not really a substantive argument.

not my experience.

Nope, I just use the last posted page to browse and saw one comment then the other. No sinister Discord groups to stalk random people. Just reading. Promise.

And even if you want your discussion at the level of individuals then you may feel it doesn't harm anyone and another individual may feel it does. If that individual can persuade other individuals to intervene through social pressure or laws then you end up in the same place. Sets of people can coordinate actions from families on up.

You exist in a world with other people. Those other people may have different views to you. That you don't think it harms anyone matters not a jot. Only what you can persuade others to accept. To that extent society is real.

Stop with the amoralism. this is a philosophical forum where we discuss what is just. this is not a business, political party, or parliament. It is just for natives to prevent a 9 9 6 race to the death in their own country. it is unjust for jealous busybodies to meddle with romantic relationships that of those of strangers. It is not a logical rebuttal to merely describe the amoral process by which injustice happens. I am sure if I browse your profile you will have ideals and wants and shoulds in there. I already demonstrated to another person commiting this fallacy that I could reply just as easily with fallacious amoralism to any of your oughts.

We do discuss philosophy but we aren't a philosophy forum. The Culture War is very little to do with what is just and more to do with the overarching clash of culture within societies. So it shouldn't really surprise you if your ideas are critiqued within that framework.

Having said that pragmatism is a philosophy, so pointing out that your ideas do need to account for others is a valid point.

Or to put it another way, you can say people shouldn't care when a 25yo man dates a 16yo girl. And a valid response is shouldn't is irrelevant only what actually is.

This is a discussion forum, so you don't get to control who responds or the frame of their arguments. You can simply choose not to respond if it goes in a direction you don't wish to pursue however.

This is a discussion forum, so you don't get to control who responds or the frame of their arguments.

You did it again. You turned a criticisim of your logic into an attempt to control what you write, and then remarked the obvious fact that I can't control your fingers or delete your comments from the forum. That is fallacious and pointless to say; it adds nothing to the conversation. You are responding to something I didn't say, with descriptive facts everyone knowns, instead of actually engaging with my position, which is normative.

Pragmatism is a valid response to a normative claim. Thats what you are not understanding.

If you don't like it, ignore me. But you said "Stop with the amoralism"

I am telling you no, I will not because it is a valid rebuttal to your ideas.

You have asserted it is not, but you have not even made an attempt to argue why it isn't.

I don't have to ignore you. I can just keep responding to stop with amoralism every time you post it in response to a normative argument. I don't have to make an argument that you find convincing. I can in fact just keep pointing out that I want to have an ethics argument, and you are responding with descriptive trivialities after misinterpreting what I said.

You can indeed, of course. But as you are just making a statement and not backing it up, I think anyone reading will correctly take my point which is that descriptivism is not a triviality in an ethics argument.

Do you have an actual argument for why it is just a triviality? An assertion does not an argument make.

And I can claim anybody reading that has progressed beyond Kohlberg's conventional stage of moral development will understand that responding to normative claims by wrongly interpreting them as different descriptive claims is fallacious. Do you have an actual argument otherwise? Your descriptive assertions do not make a normative argument.

Your lack of consistency is your problem, not your interlocutor's problem.

My view is consistent but they are trying to make it seem inconsistent by exploiting my choice of rhetoric in two separate scenarios. No one is that studious of my comments so it smells like cheating/sneering to me but I could be wrong.

Assuming that people are engaging in targeted stalking just because they respond to comments that are buried deep inside threads is unreasonable. Lots of users use the "firehose" page to scroll through all comments as soon as they are made, with no regard for how deep into a thread they are.

This is the second person to follow me around between threads, tying two unrelated things I said together in a feeble attempt to feel like they discredited me. You might have used the firehose page, but it's looking like they are sneering at at least one of my comments and then trolling for more.

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