site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8601 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It is not.

Ok man, have fun advocating for reducing penalties for rape to those for unpaid rent.

What is asserted without argument may be dismissed without argument.

Under which moral framework? Why? You're just throwing boo words out without actually justifying your position.

Sorry mate, I'm not playing with people who only do skepticism. Show me your moral framework, and I'll show you mine.

Come on buddy, you're better than that. I said right below that you might even be right but you have to at least make the argument, instead of just calling people who disagree with you morally insane. Under which moral framework? Why?

Just calling something you disagree with morally insane on a discussion forum where people with all sorts of different values and frameworks are supposed to co-exist is just not very helpful. You might think it is morally insane but clearly there are people who do not. So at least state your case, otherwise you might as well have not replied at all. You might as well just downvote and move on at that point.

I already gave you a hint for what rejecting that thesis would entail, which should be a clear enough "why".

Anyway,like I said, I didn't do conversations on moral philosophy with people who only do pure criticism. You can't get an ought from an is, so any moral position can infinitely poked at, when your own is carefully hidden away so that it can't be criticized. Conversations about morality only make sense when they're comparative.

Conversations about morality only make sense when they're comparative.

I agree! Which is why if you note I pointed out there are people who think it is in fact not morally insane as they actually do it. That's what I wanted you to compare to. If you don't want to do that, that is fine.

But if you aren't going to justify your position then you can't call things people do morally insane. That's an inflammatory claim here, where you should want those people who disagree with you to engage. If you want to make it then justify it. If you don't want to justify it, then don't make it in the first place.

To be clear I often disagree with you, but I do think you are usually very good at justifying the positions you hold. For comparison your posts on trans issues are significantly better than this one and you clearly scaffold your positions you presumably know might be seen as inflammatory. You don't just jump to calling trans people insane or whatever. I often find myself coming away from those posts with something to think about. Not so much here.

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