site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7006 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 27, 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.

Amazon has long-engaged in book banning right-wing publishers and books, and nobody really cares about "symbolic desecration."

Well, some people do.

My understanding is the practice has expanded lately so maybe it's causing more controversy. When it was Holocaust Revisionist books and books like Kevin McDonald's Culture of Critique, basically the first books targeted by Amazon book banning, it didn't generate any controversy.

The Revisionist publisher even had to switch publishers because of government pressure on the very printing shops. They had to finance their own printing shops and sell themselves. Have never seen anyone going on about the sacred nature of "banned books" be remotely interested in that actual struggle.

There was and still is a caliber of anarchist that has The Turner Diaries next to Lolita and The Science of Revolutionary Warfare in their library because they can.

I know some liberals thirsting for cheap radical chic setup this whole "banned books" meme where they pretend a handful of their favorite authors are subversive whilst not even knowing what Der Schelm is let alone that it's classified as a criminal organisation. But don't let that disabuse you that there is still a contingent of people who care about this in principle.

But don't let that disabuse you that there is still a contingent of people who care about this in principle.

That contingent has proved itself utterly powerless to advance its aims. Attempts to actualize the principle will simply enable the cheap radical chic setup, while providing no perceptible advantage to the supposed principle. Given this inability, the cost/benefit for arguing in favor of protecting "bad" material should be reassessed; if toleration of things you consider bad observably does not secure toleration of things you consider good in turn, what is the point of extending such tolerance? Previous arguments assumed some sort of reciprocity, but that reciprocity observably does not exist, and so it is necessary to reassess those arguments in light of this new data.

if toleration of things you consider bad observably does not secure toleration of things you consider good in turn, what is the point of extending such tolerance?

Because it is morally righteous, insofar as knowledge is a common. Reciprocity isn't necessary for this to be the case.

A difficult sell in these chthonic times, I know. But do we not judge the previous people of the winter on what they managed to save?

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