site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13106 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 13, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But expanding the community might open you up to publicity that could be easier to navigate if the Motte was e.g. a full-fledged 501(c)(3) with a board of directors and an explicit mission.

I've actually been wondering how long until people bring this up :) And . . . while it's tempting, I'm not sure this has the effect we want.

so okay this is going to be long sorry

A lot of people think the head of a company is the CEO. This is incorrect. The CEO is the current centralized leader. The head of a company is its shareholders; they are the ones who have the power to control where the company goes. There is no greater authority. They literally own the company, they control everything about it.

But practically, very few people want a company to vote on every single thing. They want someone in charge to make decisions unilaterally, and that's the CEO. (Dictatorships are very effective if you have a good dictator!)

And to make this even more complicated, very few people want to choose the CEO, nor do they want to have to watch the CEO's actions. They want someone trusted to do it for them. That ends up being the Board of Directors.

So, conceptually, the shareholders choose the board (usually with advice from the current board, but not necessarily), the board chooses and regulates the CEO, the CEO runs the company.

You can kinda model nonprofits in the same way. Nonprofits often have a CEO. Nonprofits often have a board. And nonprofits also, arguably, have shareholders.

The shareholders for a nonprofit are "the citizens of the country".

And this means things are already extra-complicated. As annoying as "choose the board" is, that's nothing compared to every citizen in the country being asked to choose the board for every single nonprofit in the country.

In practice, the government ends up being the middleman here. The citizens choose the government; the government chooses the board; the board chooses the CEO; the CEO makes the actual decisions. Which technically means that every nonprofit is being managed by the government.

You can probably see the issue I have here.

I don't want the government to have oversight over us. I don't want to be liable for each individual Presidency to decide they don't like our behavior. I also don't want to deal with a board. A non-profit's board is mandatory and must not be half-or-more members of the same family.

So as long as we're not a non-profit, it's me; I'm in charge. I'm the guy who decides what happens. Whereas if we were a non-profit, we would have to get a board of directors, and I would inevitably be a minority in it, and the government would have ultimate oversight over us, and I am just not a huge fan of that arrangement.

If people disagree, I am happy to entertain disagreement, though - tell me if you think this would work out!

My $0.05 of Not Legal Advice because I Am Not Your Lawyer, agreed a 501(c)(3) would be a Bad Thing for TheMotte's mission. A sole proprietorship, i.e., functionally what you have now, would also be a Bad Thing if there is expansion because (God forbid) someone decide that they want to sue, well the sole proprietor of a sole proprietorship has no "corporate veil." That is to say there is no shield between the business (TheMotte) and the sole proprietor (you). Your personal assets are liable to forfeiture for restitution. Bankruptcy becomes common in sole proprietorships that have litigation become prohibitively expensive (a good bet) because there is no corporate veil.

So what might be a good fit would be a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). An LLC is not required to have a Board, it can in fact have whatever ownership and leadership structure (subject to some restrictions) you so choose. It can have a board, or it can be a Single Member LLC (exactly what it sounds like), a Multi-Member LLC (also exactly what it sounds like), a Closely Held LLC (multi-member but small and increased rights of all members to prevent transfer of ownership shares), or a multitude of other options.

Even forming an LLC is not a guarantee of course, courts can "pierce the corporate veil" in the parlance, meaning they can decide that the actions of the corporation's ownership/leadership are so egregious that they can be held liable as individuals, but a competent attorney should be able to provide a list of what not to do to avoid this. If the Dictatorship decides that increasing scale is a good idea, then I would strongly recommend consulting with an attorney specializing in small business regulations to determine the best path forward.

I admittedly hadn't consciously thought of doing an LLC, but you're right, good idea before scaling up.

I've actually got two companies (one LLC-as-S-corp and one C-corp) and am about to start a third anyway, this is ground I am reasonably familiar with so the actual doing-of-it isn't a big deal, and thanks for the reminder that I should do that :)

Once an attorney is involved, the economics of a small venture turn infeasible very quickly.

This is true, but it's also reasonable to add it on a list of checklist things to do when the small venture is threatening to no longer be small.

I think if I had to set up a schedule:

  • Do the reimplementation
  • Deploy it
  • Add one or two experimental subcommunities
  • If these simply don't work even for the existing audience despite picking the best possible options, okay, this didn't work, can it, otherwise . . .
  • . . . LLC time
  • Add some more carefully-chosen subcommunities
  • See if we can start growing
  • If we can't figure out how to grow, okay, this didn't work, can it, otherwise . . .
  • . . . time to talk to an attorney
  • Keep growing

I am not a lawyer, but my limited understanding is that 501(c)(3) and like grant tax exemptions to certain organizations that operate for the particular kinds of "public good", which is a nebulously defined concept, and that's why the government gets to insert itself as a representative of the public

Having a separate for-profit legal entity solely owned by you may still be beneficial if the Motte goes big.

This all sounds basically correct, I think (I haven't really studied "business associations" since I was a law student, though). Provided you're up for taking some individually-directed heat (and I have no reason to think you're not up for this) then by all means: be our beloved tyrant! It just seemed like an option worth mentioning.

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