site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7419 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.

I'll restrict myself to one point of historical autism (leaving aside things like "slave patrols", where you need to do more serious work to get out of nonsense 2020-history, or LLMs' obsession with easy contrasts): your AI has gotten the role of the Anglo-Saxon sheriff wildly wrong, and has essentially read the later Normans back into it. Anglo-Saxon sheriffs did not preside over a shire court, where shires existed, and accounting for the incredible legal variety of what a "shire" was and how it operated - they were intended as functionary stewards, junior to the (supposed) legal representative, the ealdorman, with minor input into the local lord's justice. Posse comitatus is also a hell of an anachronism even for the Normans. If you mean the levy, the sheriff had no power to summon it except as instructed by his lord, and if you mean the hue and cry, that could be raised by any figure of sufficient local standing.

If you're interested in looking further into the subject, I found in my younger years that the origins of state prosecution are actually the more interesting thread running through early English law. My LLM expands:

Before the twelfth century, prosecuting a wrong in England was the victim's own business: homicide, wounding, and theft were pursued by the injured party or his kin through the appeal, a formal private accusation brought in the shire or hundred court, and liability was discharged through compensation — wergild and bot to the victim, wite to the king — so that the Crown's stake in crime was fiscal before it was jurisdictional. It is precisely that fiscal stake, John Hudson argues in The Formation of the English Common Law, that generated state prosecution, rather than any prior theory of public justice. The Norman kings had already made the community collectively answerable to the Crown for unexplained death through the murdrum fine, and the Leges Henrici Primi (c. 1115) enumerate the placita coronae, pleas reserved to the king's jurisdiction alone, whose profits — amercements, forfeited chattels — belonged to him; but a revenue stream contingent on private appellants was a revenue stream full of holes, since kin might settle, be bought off, be intimidated, or simply not exist. The Assize of Clarendon (1166) plugged the holes: twelve lawful men of every hundred and four of every vill were sworn to present anyone reputed a robber, murderer, or thief, and the presented were tried — by ordeal of water, before the king's itinerant justices — whether or not any complainant came forward. This is the decisive step, because it created, for the first time, criminal proceedings that ran entirely at the king's suit: the offender identified by the community's oath rather than a victim's appeal, tried in the king's forum, his chattels forfeit to the king on conviction, and, by the Assize of Northampton (1176), mutilated or exiled even on acquittal if his repute was foul enough. The machinery built to secure the Crown's judicial revenue thus became, almost as a by-product, the machinery of public prosecution: the doctrine that crime is a breach of the king's peace, contra pacem domini regis, answerable to the Crown regardless of the victim's wishes, arrived riding on the Pipe Rolls.

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