site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24347 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 10, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean you have given zero evidence of transsexuals ever existing without being killed. London Theatre is acting not being transsexuals. Eunuchs were not trannies. Germans ended up killing them. Achilles was basically an Arya Stark situation of hiding your identity.

My quote that transsexuals were basically killed historically seems to be truish.

I wasn't talking about transsexuals. You said:

For 8k years of human civilization a man wearing women clothing got stoned to death.

Which is a claim that I disputed. I gave several examples where men wore women's clothes, and were not stoned to death.

If you had wanted to claim something different, you should have claimed something different.

I mean you cited the Weimar Republic and transvestite passes. I didn’t know we swapped to wearing women’s clothing for professional reasons.

Transvestite passes were just an example of men wearing women's clothes and not being stoned to death. I brought it up as an example of behavior, not identity.

Look back through my posts in this subthread. Where did I ever get off of the specific topic of responding to your specific claims about 8000 years of stoning men for dressing as women?

Dressing as a women was clearly in personal life and by choice and not like a professional reason such as being a spy and needing to sneak into a location. And besides yes you directly said transvestites

Are male transvestites not definitionally, "men who dress in women's clothes"?

I also don't think I brought up professional examples like spying. Are you confusing what I said with someone else in this thread?

I think you are very clearly trying to play a disingenuous Motte-and-Bailey game of trying to compare a Bruce Jenner situation to someone dressing as a women for a short-time period for a professional reason. A spy might disguise themselves as a women similar to an actor maybe need to play a female role. These are not the same things. You know they are not the same things. You know in a culture war conversation when I refer to a man as a women I am not talking about an actor playing a female role in theatre (for whatever labor market limitations existed then)

How am I the one doing Motte and Bailey here? You're the one making an expansive claim about how civilization stoned men who dressed as women for 8000 years and retreating to more defensible claims when you receive pushback?

I am bringing up narrow and specific counterexamples, because they are enough to disprove a statement as broad as the one you made.

It is totally fine if you think we should start stoning male transvestites to death, or you admire historical periods where that happened, or you won't consider society normal until we start doing that, or whatever you actually think. But don't pretend that you have more historical precedence for your position than you do.

I am against putting utopia in the past or the future.

What is my Motte? I think I’m just making a Bailey argument that for most of history transexuals likely faced violent deaths?

More comments

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