site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   22511 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.

Because the public does not have access to their source code, their communications, their frontend or backend., which is how we found out about the other companies manipulating their results.

So in other words, there is no evidence.

It's very easy to conceive of any smoking gun evidence as something mundane, but when someone explicitly says they don't use a particular measures for ranking, and their leaked documentation says they do, a rational actor usually assumes bad faith on the part of the party making the declaration.

So in other words, it's an assumption and not actually proven.

Khelif is highl debated in the same sense vaccines are highly debated, your attempt to dismiss a chromosome test with

"Khelif has XY chromosomes" != "Imane Khelif is a man.", and it's not just hardcore lefties who believe that but also again Algeria a Muslim conservative nation that had Khelif participate in women's sports.

vague assumptions about the culture of a country

You know you can just literally Google how the Algerian government treats and views LGBT people right? Again, they're bound to make most of the people here look like they're woke.

You're the one that brought the "this is what conspiracists say in these other cases, therefore you're wrong argument". If it works one way, it works the other way as well (or, you know, it was dishonest to make it from the start).

Well yes, conspiracists are typically stupid.

Remember, this entire conversation is about a 2019 change to push poll casual viewers being alleged as an intentional manipulation to cover for The Odyssey failing. Five years before it was even in production! There is no other way to put it, this is one of the most retarded arguments ever made, and you are left defending it because people would rather look like a massive fucking retard who apparently think RT can see the future (the only explanation for how the 2019 change could have been knowingly done for a movie in production in 2024) than concede whatever culture war nonsense they've gotten into, because showing "loyalty" to the in-group is worth sacrificing every braincell both current and future.

"Sometimes us conspiracists are right" would be far better suited in a conversation where the argument is not so bad that even the dumbest kid in the special ed classroom wouldn't attempt it. It is simply not reasonable that Rotten Tomatoes switched to push polling casual viewers for the purpose of manipulating The Odyssey review scores.

So in other words, there is no evidence.

Which is much less own then you think it is, given that there is zero public access to anything that could be evidence, and no reason to assume the site is acting in good faith.

"Khelif has XY chromosomes" != "Imane Khelif is a man."

Yes, it does.

and it's not just hardcore lefties who believe that but also again Algeria a Muslim conservative nation that had Khelif participate in women's sports.

You are again trying to use your vague impressions of a country you know nothing about to wave away the results of a chromosome test. This means nothing you say about evidence existing or not existing can be taken seriously.

You know you can just literally Google how the Algerian government treats and views LGBT people right?

Who said anything about Khelif being LGBT?

Well yes, conspiracists are typically stupid.

Remember, this entire conversation is about a 2019 change to push poll casual viewers being alleged as an intentional manipulation to cover for The Odyssey failing. Five years before it was even in production!

Oh dear. If you're going to call people stupid, you probably should make sure you're not going to misrepresent their argument to such a drastic extent. Studios have an incentive to manipulate the coverage of shitty movies in general. The Odyssey might happen to be an escalation point in the measures they take, but otherwise it's just a specific instance of what they do in general.

Which is much less own then you think it is, given that there is zero public access to anything that could be evidence, and no reason to assume the site is acting in good faith.

Then that can be said instead of making unproven allegations. They can say "I assume X".

You are again trying to use your vague impressions of a country you know nothing about to wave away the results of a chromosome test. This means nothing you say about evidence existing or not existing can be taken seriously.

We know the Algerian government viewed her as a woman, because despite being intersex they had her competing in women's sports.

Oh dear. If you're going to call people stupid, you probably should make sure you're not going to misrepresent their argument to such a drastic extent. Studios have an incentive to manipulate the coverage of shitty movies in general. The Odyssey might happen to be an escalation point in the measures they take, but otherwise it's just a specific instance of what they do in general.

Shifting from bailey to motte here. The allegation isn't "they could have incentive to manipulate the coverage" but specifically that the 2019 change by Rotten Tomatoes is active manipulation to hide how unpopular The Oddysey "truly" is.

The issue is that this actual allegation is objectively stupid, and that's why you have to retreat back. It's a motivated claim looking for evidence and couldn't find any, so it was decided that an old change to poll casual viewers (and fix feedback selection bias) would be retrofitted as proof.

Then that can be said instead of making unproven allegations.

I think it's fine to make allegations, as long as it's clear that they are allegations, and you're not misleading people by implying you have hard evidence.

We know the Algerian government viewed her as a woman, because despite being intersex they had her competing in women's sports.

Which says precisely nothing about whether or not Khelif is, in fact, a man or a woman, particularly in the presence of a Y chromosome and testicles.

Shifting from bailey to motte here. The allegation isn't "they could have incentive to manipulate the coverage" but specifically that the 2019 change by Rotten Tomatoes is active manipulation to hide how unpopular The Oddysey "truly" is.

The issue is that this actual allegation is objectively stupid,

No, you're just misrepresenting the original argument. Unless I got lost in the conversation, I didn't see anyone say this was made for the Odyssey specifically. The claim is it was made for shitty movies in general, and The Odyssey is a specific instance to which the claim applies.

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