site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5184 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 20, 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.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The State Department released a report on the ties between radical leftism and Cuba

It seems to consist of already public information, well documented in books like Days of Rage by Bryan Burrough. An excellent and humorous review can be found here.

Cuba doesn't seem to be such a big deal nowadays. Most of the documented influence ops are from decades ago, where they assisted semi serious militant groups like the Black Panthers and Weatherman. They do cooperate with aforementioned leftist front orgs like the Natoinal Lawyers Guild, but it's not exactly a secret, they aren't even trying to hide it. And there isn't evidence that these groups would wither and die without Havana's support. It seems surprisingly easy to convince young Americans that their country needs to be burned to the roots.

Anyways, Cuba is definitely getting invaded within the next year or so.

Also relevant to this: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio: The greatest terror threat facing the world now comes from the far left (July 16).

Very, very abridged:

For 25 years, the term “counter-terrorism,” at least in the West, has meant first and foremost the fight against radical Islamist extremism.

For far too long, however, our counter-terrorism doctrine has had a blind spot. A blind spot when it comes to extremist violence from the political left.

Left-wing violence was not just excused. It was treated as sacrosanct, a protected class unto itself. That era has to end.

You are here because this is real, and it is getting worse. And it can no longer be denied, and it can no longer be ignored, because it is time to crush this evil forever.

Today’s far-left terrorists can raise money in one country. They can host their communications in a second country. They can receive training in a third country. They can recruit militants in a fourth country, and then together strike a target in a fifth country. And so we have no choice but to confront this menace together.

Yawn.

So the Sunni Jihadists had to do 9/11 to claim their title of top terrorist threat. If I were OBL watching from hell, I would be very upset. After all, he killed thousands to earn his spot, and now Antifa is getting the focus after shooting a few Feds and (very allegedly) sabotaging the Reflecting Pool?

"Left wing terrorism" is roughly like "right-wing hate groups". To the degree that they are widespread (e.g. celebrating the death of Kirk, or perhaps Floyd), they are covered by 1A. To the degree that they go beyond what is protected by 1A, they are not actually widespread.

Today’s far-left terrorists can raise money in one country. They can host their communications in a second country. They can receive training in a third country.

Translation:

(1) You should not be able to raise money for causes we do not like. More debanking.
(2) You should not have access to untapped communications.
(3) You should not be able to go to other countries to meet with people for a political cause we do not like.

Sounds like a pile of horseshit to me.

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