site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   17897 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.

At the end of the day the only person who can kill themselves is obviously, themselves. We can talk about how hard it is to weather harassment and controversies and whatever, and how much anyone in particular "deserves" to have mean stuff said to them, but I have always been against the idea of blaming others for someone else's choice, regardless of how grim it is. Just turn off the computer/leave the room/whatever if people are being mean and you don't like it, they have free speech to say awful stuff and tough shit deal with it. Tons of other people live with seeing awful stuff about them all day, just check the comments of any controversial minority group content creator like outspoken jews or trans people to see evidence of that. There is no shortage of meanness on the internet and if that existing means no one else can speak then why even have the internet to begin with?

The only place I can think of at the top of my head where there is a meaningful exception is with school bullies, and that's only because the government mandates attendence for anyone who isn't being home schooled (which isn't possible for many families) thus making "just leave" not an option.

It sucks that Arday died, but no one is at fault for a suicide except for himself. We can't give up our freedoms to criticize and mock just because someone else might do something bad (whether that be suicide or murder or whatever).

At the end of the day the only person who can kill themselves is obviously, themselves. We can talk about how hard it is to weather harassment and controversies and whatever, and how much anyone in particular "deserves" to have mean stuff said to them, but I have always been against the idea of blaming others for someone else's choice, regardless of how grim it is.

You don't seem to have studied the subject of suicide at all. It's not really a choice in many cases. But the result of burdens utterly overwhelming coping resources. Someone with major depression can't make (or not make) the same choices you can make.

We would not accept that as a justification for other acts of violence. If a very unfortunate man all in the same day got diagnosed with cancer, was fired from his job, crashed his car, got robbed walking home, and found his wife in bed with the yoga instructor - we would understand if he was in extraordinary distress to the point of howling insanity, but it wouldn't excuse him going on a killing spree. Suicide is not 'less bad' than other kinds of violence because it targets the self. It bereaves your family, it devastates those who loved you most.

You don't seem to have studied the subject of suicide at all.

No but I do understand basic logic and know that "someone killing themselves" necessarily means "someone killing themselves". It is the suiciders very own action.

Someone with major depression can't make (or not make) the same choices you can make.

I'm all for suicide prevention and trying to help people out, but there is no world in which it's not their choice. If it wasn't their own actions then it wouldn't be suicide it would be murder. If you're arguing for some expansive definition of the phrase where it involves other people then go ahead I suppose, but under the general meaning that I was using suicide is necessarily their own choice, even if we agree it's an illogical one.

If not, who do you propose we should charge for Arday's death, if someone else is responsible? Maybe the writers at the Guardian or the Telegraph.

If not, who do you propose we should charge for Arday's death, if someone else is responsible? Maybe the writers at the Guardian or the Telegraph.

Who's proposing to charge anybody for Arday's suicide?

It's good to distinguish between what's good and what's legal with the understanding that law can never completely account for the complexity of moral judgement. There are bad behaviors that perhaps should never be made illegal, but that doesn't mean we can't still consider them bad.

The only place I can think of at the top of my head

I'd add criminal harassment campaigns, i.e. "I go to your house, smash in all the windows with thrown rocks, graffiti it with horrible insults, and repeat this every time you fix it", which are likewise not something you can just choose to walk away from (they will likely follow). I don't think many people argue that people should have the right to do that, though, aside from the same utterly-mindkilled people who claim that [TARGET GROUP] are an exception to normal rules of civilisation and should be murdered in the streets, and it doesn't bear on the free speech issue (beyond the "people don't generally have the right to graffiti other people's property" exception which even libertines like me generally accept).

I'd add criminal harassment campaigns, i.e. "I go to your house, smash in all the windows with thrown rocks, graffiti it with horrible insults, and repeat this every time you fix it",

Those are not speech and wouldn't be an exception as they are completely different things to begin with.

It speaks to the inordinate amount of social and political capital that black people have today. There wouldn't be a shred of sympathy from either aisle if Arday was Israeli or Indian. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the dogpiling was deserved or not (okay, maybe I'm leaning towards not).

Academic misconduct is a serious issue, and this was a grown man who knew what he was doing, mental illness or not. His fate was sealed by his own choices, his widow and children will bear the brunt of his actions now.

It speaks to the inordinate amount of social and political capital that black people have today. There wouldn't be a shred of sympathy from either aisle if Arday was Israeli or Indian

Is it their social and political capital? Or is it that people subconsciously see them as lacking agency? With Arday, it's hard not to see him as a child who was in way over his head, being used as a pawn in someone's status game.

Is it their social and political capital? Or is it that people subconsciously see them as lacking agency?

Maybe those two things are related. The Women are Wonderful Effect seems to relate to regarding women as less agentic too.

Maybe those two things are related.

Well here are a few scenarios I thought of:

Alan Dershowitz, a well respected attorney and law professor who (1) was caught up with Jeffrey Epstein to some extent and accused of having relations with Virginia Giuffre (probably a false accusation, but still potentially damaging); and (2) was accused of plagiarizing parts of a book (as I recall, he blamed his research assistant);

Bernie Sanders, well respected among progressives, socialists, etc. despite having a substantial personal fortune;

Richard Posner, a well respected judge whose writings arguably contain a lot of political incorrectness.

My sense is that the social and political capital possessed by these men helped protect them. But what's interesting to me is that for the most part, people didn't take the position that the problems these men got into were the result of them being victims of circumstance, being innocent pawns who were manipulated by larger forces, etc. It seems they were all treated as having agency.

By contrast, it seems that this Jason Arday is thought of as lacking agency by both his supporters and his detractors.

My sense is that the social and political capital possessed by these men helped protect them.

I note there's another thing your 3 examples have in common. I don't think that's what protected them, but it's curious that a commonality like that exists among the 3 scenarios that came to your mind.

It also helps that at least two of them are incredibly competent.

Yeah. Not to 'imagine if this situation was reversed' this but if this entire arc was playing out along the lines of 'Conservative Professor gets #metooed on soft allegations, University publicly supports him for a week then concedes under weight of obviousness and then professor self-terminates a week later' then there'd be zero of this sympathy

In fact, we don’t even have to imagine: this exact situation happened in 2020 (Mike Adams, see links downthread)

Yeah and Mike Adams didn't violate any particular codes of conduct besides being a social media chud, from what I can see?

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