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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not claiming the movement petered out cleanly in one summer. But it did break down into a lower grade yet persistent cultural enforcement mechanism. The timeline nitpicking doesn't take away the fact that MeToo normalised treating accusations as sufficient grounds for professional and social destruction in far too many cases. The cases involving high-profile names going unpunished were the motte. The bailey was many, many smaller cases with varying levels of credibility, but decisions being made purely to appease the online mob. This is like nuking an entire city to kill a couple hundred terrorists. The online mob, a phenomenon that did not exist to nearly the planetary proportions just a few years prior, was the backbone of MeToo. A self-righteous and frankly, ignorant social force animated by a twisted sense of justice, that does not believe in a process beyond believing the accuser's word (sourced from social media, the uncontested bastion of truth and objectivity), and is so easily manipulated, probably should not have a say in these matters.
And that reveals the double standard at the heart of the whole affair. Yes, Feinstein sat on the letter for strategic reasons. Yes, the timing was political. But that's exactly the problem. The Democrats weaponised a decades-old, uncorroborated allegation at the last possible moment to derail a nomination. They didn't bring it forward early for a proper vetting, they leaked it (or allowed it to leak) at the eleventh hour for maximum damage. It was calculated lawfare and the GOP knew it. The process was already a circus by this point.
You call it "discounted on their face." I call it recognising a political ambush when you see one. The fact remains, the presumption of innocence wasn't abandoned by the GOP. The false dichotomy of "believe all women" versus "assume all women are lying for personal or political gain" is exactly the problem. The sane position is simpler and more rhetorically humble: "I'm sorry for what you're going through but I don't know you. I don't know the accused. I wasn't there. I don't possess the means to verify your claims. I'm not implying you're lying, I'm asking you to show basic merit to your claims when you're asking the public and institutions to defenestrate someone over them." This is where the online mob fails the bar, not that they intended to pass anyway.
Ford's story had serious problems from the start. Massive memory gaps (duh), no corroboration from people she named, changing details, and a history of left-wing activism. "She mentioned it privately multiple times since 2012" is weaksauce, frankly. People tell stories to friends for all kinds of reasons, including (mostly) personal. And none of those supposed confidants came forward with contemporaneous evidence anyway. You don't need a "long-term setup" to explain this. And FYI, I'm not saying this was the case. But it is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Point being, we don't know.
Look, I wasn't expecting to debate MeToo on TheMotte in 2026. In hindsight, the movement blew up well beyond its stated principles. The "overwhelming majority was workplace harassment claims with corroboration" line is true for the NYT's carefully curated list of big fish. It is necessarily not true for the ambient cultural wave that swept through every industry, university, and social circle. MeToo created an environment where a single accusation - often years old, often with no contemporaneous evidence, often from someone who may or may not have a vendetta - was enough to trigger professional death. Believe women became the default. This didn't stay confined to Weinstein and Spacey, it also infected the middle ground, and that's where the real damage was done.
This isn't a decibel contest, there are no objective metrics to quantify social media noise that I can just link to. There was a cultural norm where accusations, especially from women, carried enormous presumptive weight, and questioning them was socially radioactive.
The fact that a bad date with pressure but no clear non-consent became national conversation under the MeToo banner shows how far the evidentiary bar had dropped. And it wasn't even the alleged victim that went to the tabloid, a friend of hers did. This was not an outlier. It was the new standard in action.
You keep weakmanning again and again. The blowback was "normal standards of evidence and skepticism should apply before we treat an accusation as sufficient grounds for professional and social destruction." The movement was trying to replace those norms with faith-based decision making. No one was arguing against investigating claims, that is exactly what they were advising. Go to the right authorities and let them do the job. If a decision was made following an exhaustive investigation and your claims were substantiated, great. Not a problem. But the online vigilantism was the real engine. This is the part that MeToo's defenders keep minimising. A self-righteous digital crowd that wasn't there, doesn't know any of the people involved, has no access to evidence, is motivated to lie for clicks and engagement, and is primarily driven by signaling virtue. That mob gets to have the loudest voice in deciding someone's fate, treating due process as an annoying inconvenience at best? That is what made the signal-to-noise ratio catastrophic.
More options
Context Copy link