site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18693 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From around 2010 up until very recently, the collective opinions that these people coalesced around were pumped into the mainstream by journalists, media companies, and news networks that couldn't resist a cheap and easy source of material that was pre-optimized to be as tribalizing and divisive as possible.

This is a complete misrepresentation of early reddit. Back then, reddit wasn't the holier-than-thou leftist hellhole it is today. It was full of “grey tribe” progressives: nerdy atheists who were certainly not conservative, but also not easily offended feminist wokescolds. There was an ethos of free speech maximalism, which is why besides le epic funny subreddits like /r/fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu there were also 4chan-worthy subreddits like /r/WatchPeopleDie and /r/Niggers. The general attitude was that yeah, they are kinda awful, but they have just as much of a right to exist here; if you don't like it just don't subscribe to it.

Remember /u/violentacrez, the guy who created /r/Jailbait (for posting sexualized pictures of minors), and moderated /r/BeatingWomen, /r/Creepshots, /r/PicsOfDeadKids, /r/PicsOfDeadNiggers (and a bunch of other subreddits that were exactly what it said on the tin)? When Gawker reporter Adrian Chen threatened to dox him, calling him the “biggest troll on the web”, reddit rallied behind him in solidarity, and responded by banning all of Gawker media in support.

This included mainstream subs like /r/politics who wrote: “Reddit prides itself on having a subreddit for everything, and no matter how much anyone may disapprove of what another user subscribes to, that is never a reason to threaten them.” It's literally inconceivable today!

(Incidentally, did you guys see the recent Pew poll which concluded /r/politics is 97% leftwing/progressives now?)

Of course those 4chan-esque subs were always dubious if not outright illegal, so it was clear that as reddit grew into the mainstream, something had to be done about them. The problem is that the admins overcorrected and instead of just banning some of the worst offenders like /r/Jailbait or /r/CoonTown they ended up banning almost everything that violated lefist sensibilities.

Anyway, to wrap a long story up, my point is that:

From around 2010 up until very recently, the collective opinions that these people coalesced around were pumped into the mainstream

...seems exactly the wrong way around. It was woke politics that grew popular around 2010 that ended up taking over reddit, not the other way around.

..seems exactly the wrong way around. It was woke politics that grew popular around 2010 that ended up taking over reddit, not the other way around.

I think "the other way around" is right, though. They didn't take over by becoming popular, they took over by consolidating moderation in their hands (I think right now a handful of people moderates a ridiculous amount of the most popular subs, though I don't remember the numbers), and getting admins to ban opposition.

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