site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   14531 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Amadan has specifically and repeatedly noted concerns about a possible warrant to Zorba as a major motivating factor. Whether it's "particularly likely" enough for you to let it count, it's clearly enough for an actual person who actually hosting a website to care -- but only for one political allegiance.

Maybe related: the "contact us" page has a warrant canary saying no warrants have yet been received in 2023.

Probably just forgetting to update, it, but you never know.

I don't get it. Is fedposting against the right allowed on this forum?

Nope.

But there's a lot of places it was tolerated, and not only did their management have no concerns about lawfare, more importantly, literally zero have shown up in the news having been hit by or having to resist that lawfare. There's no sequel to ARFCOM; there's no even a sequel to 'Discord Channel Shut Down for making fun of George Floyd'.

This isn't perfect information, just like there are limits to our ability to extrapolate from the lack of Brendan-Eich-facepunching aimed at modern day interleft-battles. It's still information.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

First you say that fedposting is allowed only against figures on the right without lawfare. Then you provide a long post with examples of people saying kirk deserved to be shot and then say that no discord channels were shut down for this sort of behavior.

However, it's quite clear that saying that someone deserved to die is not fedposting. So the connection is unclear to me.

I'm saying that not-left-aligned organizations and groups have to be extremely cautious about tolerating fedposting because they have clear examples of lawfare and other destructive outside forces targeting them, often successfully. Left-aligned organizations don't fear that, and they have gotten away with fedposting without evidence of having to even resist any lawfare, and it cost them zero support among self-described 'normies'.

However, it's quite clear that saying that someone deserved to die is not fedposting.

The moderators here have included far less overt advocacy than "His killer committed a just act." as fedposting.

Left-aligned organizations don't fear that, and they have gotten away with fedposting

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see that in your post, unless we're counting death celebration as fedposting now.

The moderators here have included far less overt advocacy than "His killer committed a just act." as fedposting.

Do you have an example?

Do you have an example?

A central one. As a more prospective one, see here.

(edit: improved context on first link to include where it was explicitly called fedposting)

Nowhere do I see examples of your claim at the top that we (moderators) or I (specifically) prohibit fedposting "only for one political allegiance."

I will generally put on the modhat whenever someone is threatening violence or being too explicit about wanting someone or some group to die. Whether or not I actually think Zorba is likely to be served a warrant.

If in your database of Every Fucking Thing Amadan Has Ever Posted, there is a time I came down on a leftie less vigorously than I came down on a rightie for posting something similar, I will say with all sincerity that it was not intentional, I try my level human best to be fair and even-handed regardless of political allegiance, and if I fail, it's because my memory is as fallible as I am. I don't keep a spreadsheet of times I modded righties and lefties and how many days I gave them, respectively, for "fedposting."

If Ken White went on his "Someone should kill Elon Musk" rant here on the Motte, I would definitely have modded him.

Yes, to be clear, I'm not accusing the moderators here of a political bias on fedposting; I'm highlighting that we're worried about it, and zero of the left-fedposty ones are.

I'm fully on board with this - I wouldn't accept a small risk of attracting police attention for a fun online hobby either. But that remains a reasonable decision on the part of Zorba even if the risk is very small indeed.

I think it's a perfectly reasonable decision on Zorba's part. I even think it's a perfectly reasonable calculation on the part of progressive-leaning forum.

I'm critiquing the process, not the people reacting to the result.

Zorba never expressed a fear of being served a warrant or asked me to mod fedposters to prevent that from happening. That was me saying "Let's not post things that could result in Zorba being served a warrant," so blame me, not him.

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