site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22551 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.

apparently you thought I said that other people don't exist, and that nobody has different views than me.

No my point is that unless you convince those other people of your views, your views are worthless. What ought to be is irrelevant compared to what is and will be. That is what you are fundamentally misunderstanding. Moral substance doesn't really exist, so yes I am stripping that away. That's my point!

My reply is productive because I am attempting to explain what is apparently a very alien framing to you. (Perhaps badly, apparently!)

I'm not misunderstanding anything. Your point is trivial and uttering it appears to be based on several modeling errors. First, you underestimate how obvious your point is. I think I'd have to be below average IQ at least for your irrelevant, but trivially true point to by anything but obvious. Obviously, I am not below average IQ, and if you genuinely thought otherwise, your world modeling was very off. Second, you are modeling me as a politician, when I'm actually just engaging in leisure time. This is what makes your point irrelevant. Even if I did not realize your point, I do not need it and will never use it, because I am not in the business of convincing people of anything. I just want to debate on the internet for fun.

Moral substance doesn't really exist, so yes I am stripping that away.

So you don't think rape is wrong? What about racism? Genocide? Torture? I focused more on your strawmanning than your amoralism because honest amoralism is extremely rare. Most people think rape, murder, torture, and genocide are genuinely wrong. Liberals in particular invoke amoralism when conservatives state conservative moral positions, but it's a strawman since most liberals hold deep moral positions on other topics.

(Perhaps badly, apparently!)

You didn't speak clearly about your moral framework until now. Instead, you strawmanned my descriptive positions and my best guess was that you have an average moral framework but wanted to bypass the difficult moral argument to attack a strawman of my position.

Liberals in particular invoke amoralism when conservatives state conservative moral positions, but it's a strawman since most liberals hold deep moral positions on other topics.

I mean, some of the edgier ones do, but it's more usual to deny (usually implicitly) some of the moral axes of conservatives (and social justice progressives) as meaningful without outright denying the existence of oughts.

Most people think rape, murder, torture, and genocide are genuinely wrong.

Of course, most people also disagree on the exact definitions of these terms, so there isn't true consensus on their "wrongness".

Second, you are modeling me as a politician, when I'm actually just engaging in leisure time. This is what makes your point irrelevant. Even if I did not realize your point, I do not need it and will never use it, because I am not in the business of convincing people of anything. I just want to debate on the internet for fun.

Not at all. I've worked with politicians. If I was modelling you as a politician I would be appealing to your naked self interest and nothing more. I wouldn't waste time arguing with you. I just enjoy arguing on the internet.

You're confusing the idea that moral substance does not exist in any real way with the idea that morality does not exist in any way.

Like I said before justice only exists in reference to people. It has no reality outside of that. In a universe with no sentient beings there is no justice (or indeed injustice) to be found. So talking about how just something is relative to an individual is of no merit, because what is just is what you can convince people to believe is just. No moral substance but still morality.

Moral error theory says that there is no such thing as moral facts, but that doesn't mean it doesn't recognize that people have beliefs about what is right or wrong. It just specifies these are not in and of themselves either true or false in any objective way.

Is a unicorn blue? No because unicorns don't exist. But the color blue does indeed exist. And someone could paint a picture of a blue unicorn. The representation exists, the idea exists, but the unicorn does not.

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