site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   18563 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think "popping filter bubbles" is a misnorner. There is no filter, be it imposed or organic. No new information you reveal will make people go "oh my god, I had no idea, that's horrible!". People look at this and think it's fine, actually.

As for vocabulary, I have plenty, I'm just a bit burnt out seeing it all shrugged off by interlocutors having completely different values.

People look at this and think it's fine, actually.

I saw the other day about Muhammad being the "top boy name" in England and Wales for the third straight year, and I thought- I can't wrap my head around people that don't have a reaction to that. I don't expect everyone to have my reaction to it, but to react with a shrug like it's completely banal?

I'm just a bit burnt out seeing it all shrugged off by interlocutors having completely different values.

Amen. The refusal of people to acknowledge alien values exist and are increasingly common continues to be a major blind spot.

This, in fairness, doesn’t necessarily represent a rapid demographic change- if Uk whites are like US whites, it’s probably mostly white baby names getting dumber more poorly spelled more creative.

While I agree, there is something interesting going on. Euthanasia is similar to surrogacy. It just silently became a thing and it was barely discussed. When I opened this topic with my friends, there were quite some differences ranging from this is legalized human trafficking and slavery to nothingburger and hugely beneficial thing. These were opinions of husband and wife and it also surprised them how their view differed on this under the hood change of reality.

Things like these are pushed and normalized constantly, it is akin to gish-galop of policies and regulations many just pass bellow the radar only to pop-up when they actually cause massive problems. Sometimes these things silently work the other way around, for instance how introduction of body cams for US police officers basically demolished the argument of excess policing. These videos basically replaced Law&Order TV shows and reality shows in one.

Yeah, this is about right. From the other side, this juxtaposition is about as compelling as comparing trendlines of American workplace accidents resulting in loss of limb to Canadian hospital amputations and thinking it will BTFO the commies who support OSHA. ("More people are dismembered each year by Canadian doctors than by American factory floors!")

I just wish people were more open about it. What keeps happening instead is that people construct these elaborate arguments about how strict and rigorous a practice is, implying that their opinion would change if it turned out that it isn't, it turns out it isn't, and then they shrug citing a difference in values, while mocking you for being worried about slippery slopes.

Social conservatives have been Cassandra pretty consistently. Progressives simply declare it a good thing after the fact.

I'm not sure I see the implication that their opinion would change if the practice is not as strict or rigorous. Going solely by form, I would only expect that they make the argument because they think that your opinion would change if it is, which seems like a sensible default if you are trying to argue across value system lines with the intention to win.

(It's a separate question if we, here should expect better. Rationalist values say yes: if you can imagine an argument that would change your mind, you should help the other side make it as best as you can, "that which can be destroyed by the truth should be", Litany of Tarski et cetera. However this is one part of rationalist values that goes deeply against culture warrior values, which say that the last thing you would want is to betray your cause and people by helping others shake your faith.)

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