site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8545 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 6, 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.

If you are unsure about what some public intellectual is saying,

I'm not.

Again, and you keep ignoring this, he explicitly says "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens".

I am not unsure about what he's saying. I've been pretty clear about this. He directly, literally, explicitly states his position. Why are you inventing this idea that I'm unsure what he's saying?

By not being willing to read other things on the topic you are dismissing disclaimers

Dude, I don't know how to explain it to you any more simply than I already did.

I am evaluating what he said in those two posts. I don't have to read a person's entire set of works to criticise specific posts!

This has nothing to do with me "not being willing to read"; you've completely invented that, as you've invented several other positions for me to hold.

Its not just a single "report" like you were describing it

Then blame Hanson, because that's his description: "a U.S. military report says that intelligently controlled UFOs with amazing abilities seem real to them".

I am literally relaying his words, and you keep assigning blame to me for direct quotes from Hanson! If he subsequently found other reports, that's fine; but I'm criticising his post based on the words inside it!

My priors on aliens are not as low as yours. There is nothing physically impossible about aliens existing.

Why do you think my priors are low? The only comment I've made on alien existence is "If aliens exist -- which I think is plausible". Where are you getting "stoatherd has a low prior on aliens?"

I don't know what it would take for you to change your mind on alien likelihood

Evidence.

The aliens don't have to be little green men, or any other hollywood stereotypes.

This is a nice line, but it seems to be from a different argument entirely.

Why do you consider the possibility so infinitesimally low? Is there some physical law you think it is violating?

The possibility of what, exactly? Aliens existing, or aliens specifically interacting with Earth, typically via UFOs?

Why are you inventing yet another position for me, that I consider the possibility (of whichever thing you're talking about) "infinitesimally low"?

I asked you a specific question in my last comment: when Hanson said "there's a good chance UFOs are aliens", did he mean there's a good chance UFOs are aliens?

You gave a pretty detailed rundown of how you think Hanson's views have evolved (which I appreciate). I think the implicit answer to my question was "yes", but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Given that, can you please acknowledge that you're now completely moving the goalposts? Because you claimed I was being uncharitable, and I was misinterpreting a hypothetical (with disclaimers!) from Hanson -- that he didn't actually believe the thing that I was saying he did.

Now you're saying he does believe that thing. And you're trying to prosecute the case that the thing is reasonable. That's fine, but can you please notice that you've entirely shifted the argument?

Ya I admit I didn't see Hansons latest post cuz I hadn't fully read the parent post. So I didn't believe you that he had said that.

See it from my perspective:

If Hanson thinks aliens are real then I'm willing to update my beliefs to think that aliens are real.

So you saying that Hanson says aliens are real is for me basically claiming aliens are real. Using the same logic you've used elsewhere about not trusting authors on something where you have really low priors ... I thought it more likely you were mistaken the that aliens are real.

Then the article you linked to was at a time when he didn't actually think aliens are real. So that confused me.

And I agree Hanson is not a careful writer. It's very easy to read any of his stuff in isolation and see him as a crackpot.

And ya my "goalposts" have shifted as I've learned more. I think the framing is maybe bad. I don't think I'm trying to "win" an argument against you. There are mistake and conflict arguments and I was treating this more like a mistake one. I'm certainly learning lots. I don't have any particular strong values attached to the existence of aliens or in defending Hanson. I think it's a mistake to dismiss Hanson out of hand, but he doesn't do himself enough favors for me to think it's vital to defend his reputation. He has been hit with like a half dozen cancellation attempts over things he has said. I've cringed at most of them.

So I guess I'll state what I'm trying to get across and leave it at that:

I think it's a mistake to entirely dismiss Hanson. Especially on his topics of expertise: Aliens, Prediction markets/futarchy, and signalling models of social behavior.

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