site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   22052 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 3, 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.

Xitter has recently also lively discussion about the Lauren question, and proposal of abolishing women right to vote triggered massive xitterstorm.

Obviously, if you took away the right of women to vote, then in the short run some of them would be mad about this. But that’s it. You understand that, right? Nothing else bad happens.

According to "Wanye" nothing would happen when the 19th is repealed. Why he proposes it then? Just for clicks? He indends something to happen.

Wanye compares his proposal to DSA proposals of socialist America (which, in worst case, would result in something like Hugo Chavez, not Lenin or Stalin, which would be indeed rather bad).

So what is the worst what can happen when the 19th is gone?

TL;DR: We do not know.

Wanye does not imagine end of democracy and establishment of strong man rule. Many historical cases when voting was either formally abolished or reduced to empty charade, when no matter how you vote, El Presidente always wins and people who bitch too much about it fall out of windows.

I believe Wanye when he says he does not want this. I believe him that he wants democracy to continue and voting staying meaningful, only with restricted franchise based on penis possession.

This, limiting of democratic franchise, never ever happened in modern recorded history.

Wanye, is proposing something far more revolutionary than all DSA combined. As a self professed conservative, he should do some soul searching and second, third and fourth order thinking.

"But in the 19th century, men only voted and things were fine! We must retvrn!"

No, 19th century was not fine. It was, among other things, age of rabid nationalism and psychopathic war mongering, leading to the great unpleasantness of 1914. If you want this back, say so.

If not, onus is on you to bring some strong evidence that today's manoids became civilized and are not the bloodthirsty beasts of recent past.

The post was about how bad the DSA is, not that we should remove a woman's right to vote. Elsewhere Wanye says he doesn't actually support repealing the 19th at all. The point is that generally people have a much stronger reaction to politics that on net, if they could be implemented painlessly(and they can't but it's a hypothetical), would cause very little change in day to day life than things like DSA marxist proposals that would destroy the nation. Which is an interesting observation albeit I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with it, could have been more easily demonstrated with like gay marriage going away being something many would fight much harder than some material tax change that would probably have a much larger impact on the lives of even gay dudes.

The US had to be cajoled and suckered into joining the War, three years late. WWI is actually a very strange thing in that, while there was popular enthusiasm for it that we can't imagine today (essentially, the chickenhawkery seen on the right with GWOT and from libs with Slava Ukraini, but actually followed through by going to the Front), the path from assassination to war was the first disaster of modern bureaucracy. The sluggishness of Austria, the complacency of Germany, the paranoia of Russia, the confusion of France, the duplicity of the British Foreign Office, and the do-gooding sociopathy of the Wilson Administration all, when you look at the details, look far more like the spring of 2020 than they do anything out of the 19th Century.

(which, in worst case, would result in something like Hugo Chavez, not Lenin or Stalin, which would be indeed rather bad).

Uhh, Hugo Chavez would ALSO be rather bad.

You understand that, right? Nothing else bad happens.

Yes, we go back to the happy days when only men had the vote, and politics was a shining beacon of sober and grave rationality, carried out on behalf of the nation by public servants of unimpeachable integrity who thought only of the common weal and the public good, and the voters considered each matter and policy with precise, logical, analysis unbesmirched by partisanship, personal advantage, prejudices and preferences, or the faintest whiff of the pork barrel.

Oh, wait... that happened?

Tammany Hall was built by men, and brought down by men too.

Is political corruption correlated with gender, are male politicians more or less corrupt than female ones?

The worrying issue is the continuing trend toward there being a boys party and girls party. Obviously, there are more girls than boys, so eventually this means the girls party will win, right?

I'm much more worried about the racial split, which seems sharply divided between the "white party" and "Blacks (with capital B!) + associated allies party." That is a really toxic divide, and it seems to be getting worse, not better.

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