site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   16444 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.

You said

The very understandable reaction: "fuck it, you're calling me a Nazi, I might as well be one."

Do you still agree it's an understandable reaction to be a Nazi? I live in the world where I take your words as you say them.

Now maybe you were just joking and I misunderstood it, fair enough. Common autism thing after all, exacerbated by the internet. But the wording doesn't seem intended as humor.

No, it is not. And rather than ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt (as any good faith argument would go for) you immediately jumped to calling me a Nazi. An argument so facile and childish that it was a meme back in the usenet days (argumentum ad Hitlerum.)

I am pretty sure that this forum is filled with the neurodivergent, and I had made myself pretty well understood to them. That I was making a figure of speech: that I was not literally speaking for myself, but making rhetorical flourish to illustrate the widening of the Overton window.

That you jumped on the superficial elements of that argument to discredit me is not an error on my part or autism. It's a you thing. So, again. What did you mean by that? What should be done with Nazis? Tell me what your beliefs are. Stop evading the question. If you have no beliefs about Nazis, then why is being one bad? Why would wearing Nazi tattoos be bad, or having a swastika on a flag?

If I hold you to your own standards, should I take your words as you say them? Or do you not believe that about yourself?

I will actually credit autism here: I am hyperfixating on it, until I get a proper answer.

And rather than ask for clarification or give me the benefit of the doubt (as any good faith argument would go for) you immediately jumped to calling me a Nazi.

We can actually check this, thankfully you even linked it. Let's see what I said.

I said

The very understandable reaction: "fuck it, you're calling me a Nazi, I might as well be one."

So are you saying you're a Nazi then? I guess add another on the pile of growing unashamed nazism.

"Rather than ask for clarification". Hmm, I wonder what "so are you saying you're a Nazi then?" is. Is that a question mark I see? It's literally an ask for clarification, because what I saw was "it's understandable reaction (to say) ... I might as well be (a Nazi)".

You either misread it (fair enough I misread too sometimes), are functionally illiterate, or are not being serious.

Are you being serious?

Again, this is you adhering to the letter of the law. You're not calling me a Nazi (you're only saying that I'm saying that I'm one.) But it amounts to the same thing. You would not dare say this to anyone in real life.

In this very response, in the last sentence, you have a descalation, a insult, and a sneer. If I call you out on it, you'll focus on the first part (while conveniently leaving out the other two.) Like how you exclude the last sentence of 'Add another on the pile of growing unashamed Nazism'. The second sentence clarifies what you meant.

You're not fooling anyone.

I'm going to disengage from this conversation because you're clearly trying to ragebait me. I do not understand how this behavior is acceptable to the moderators.

Again, this is you adhering to the letter of the law. You're not calling me a Nazi (you're only saying that I'm saying that I'm one.) But it amounts to the same thing. You would not dare say this to anyone in real life.

I absolutely would ask someone if they were a nazi if they said it was reasonable to call themselves a Nazi lol

"The map is not the territory." OP's point is that they aren't going to dispute your label of "Nazi". You are attempting to change their behavior by extending the label of "Nazi" to cover them and in doing so tar their behavior by association with "Nazis". They are saying they would rather accept the label than change their behavior to suit you. You are now doubling down on the shaming attempt by trying to reinterpret this as a move towards the more agreed upon definition of the label rather than the refusal to bow to your shady tactics it is.

If that's what was intended then it's a misunderstanding. I took "I might as well be one" to mean an embrace of Nazism, given the surrounding context of Hitlerposting.

It's understandable that someone may say "I want to cut welfare and if you call that fascist, I don't care, I'm still for cutting welfare and I'll be your stupid version of fascist". But if not caring about it means talking about your belief in Agartha or something, then it looks a lot like just embracing the capital n Nazism instead. It's way less understandable if the response was "I want to cut welfare, and if you call that fascist then I'll gas the kikes too". The latter is negative polarization and not defensible logic.

If they meant the former and not the latter then fine, miscommunications happened. That's part of why I didn't even call them a Nazi to begin with, but asked for clarification cause the surrounding context was about Hitlerposting.

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