site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13134 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.

All I can do is give some hypotheticals, which is If we assume this recent statement is true from Vance because we assume he isn't lying to our faces

That isn't what you did.

I can't tell you which way is which cause I don't know

Then say that up front, instead of pretending.

Thus within this hypothetical

Your original comment had nothing to do with hypotheticals.

If people want to explore the alternative assumption where Vance is lying

People want to explore the alternative timeline where you say what you mean.

You think it's cute when you go "oh, you disagree with my unflattering framing X? Well, if you want to explore even-less-flattering-framing-Y, go ahead!"

The problem is that this hinges on everyone around you being stupid.

You are being criticised for obfuscating your position to try and head off specific criticism.

No one is saying "hey, you're being too charitable when you said Vance isn't a horrible liar!"

Please stop pretending that the latter is the case.

What they shouldn't do is blame their inability to properly read on me proposing a hypothetical

You are lying.

You did not propose a hypothetical.

Stop blaming people for not reading something you did not write.

You did not propose a hypothetical.

Look dude I pointed out to you already where I said assume, and at least to my knowledge and all the ways I've used and seen it before, an assumption implies and in many contexts requires a hypothetical. I've never seen a person say "Let's assume X is true" about a claim they know to be true, it is always one that they are not sure about it.

As Google says for the definition

To assume is to take something as true without proof or evidence

To me, it must be a hypothetical then, cause proof and evidence would make it not hypothetical anymore and as I said above, I've never seen "Let's assume X" in any context that isn't theorizing.

Look dude I pointed out to you already where I said assume

"Now we can all assume" does not posit a hypothetical.

If you'd like, I can patronisingly link you to the definition of every word in that sentence, as that's the level of discourse you've decided to operate on.

If you want me to be absolutely maximally clear in every way and say something like "Let us suppose for the sake of discussion" instead of just saying the normal thing that normal people say, I'm not doing that. I'm gonna say the normal thing that normal people say. And you should read it the normal way instead of engaging in bad faith.

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