site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   22306 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 17, 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 would have purchased twitter and more if he hadn't stolen that money from me.

Damn, you had $27 billion dollars? Sorry for your loss.

Writing a check isn't a great action.

Sure it is, as long as you spend it on the right thing. If he spent it on yachts, or parked it in an index funds whatever, that wouldn't have been a great action. But buying twitter and changing how it was run had a massive impact on the world, so it's a great action by definition.

Damn, you had $27 billion dollars? Sorry for your loss.

Obviously not what I meant. There is no point unless you engage with what I meant.

Sure it is, as long as you spend it on the right thing.

No it's obviously a trivial action. And even on your metric he falls short of what I would do. What is less trivial is getting access to the money but it is not great to me. You may envy it and not true greatness but that does not make JavaScript in 1995 great.

Obviously not what I meant. There is no point unless you engage with what I meant.

What you meant made no sense. You wouldn't have bought Twitter even if Musk got absolutely no subsidies.

No it's obviously a trivial action

It most likely determined the result of the American election, so it had a huge impact on the world.

And even on your metric he falls short of what I would do.

You wouldn't do anything.

You wouldn't do anything.

How do you know that?

What you meant made no sense.

What do I need to clarify for you? It seemed quite simple to me.

How do you know that?

Because you wouldn't be in a position to, not even if Musk stole no money.

What do I need to clarify for you? It seemed quite simple to me.

How, specifically, would you purchase Twitter, even if Elon Musk stole absolutely no money from you.

Because you wouldn't be in a position to, not even if Musk stole no money.

The premise is if I did have that money. Otherwise we ought to talk about the making of money and not the buying things with it. Do you remember the breakfast question by the way?

The premise is if I did have that money

No, the only premise was that Musk is not given any money at your expense. So outside of a tax reduction equal to you contribution to the subsidies he received, you'd have no extra money regardless of how much he received.

Otherwise we ought to talk about the making of money and not the buying things with it.

Why? Lots of billionaires could have ought Twitter, and didn't.

Why? Lots of billionaires could have ought Twitter, and didn't.

Are those billionaires me?

No, the only premise was that Musk is not given any money at your expense.

That was not the premise.

So outside of a tax reduction equal to you contribution to the subsidies he received, you'd have no extra money regardless of how much he received.

If he behaved fully justly some philosopher-king would have the money and we'd have cool things with it instead of a buggy social media website, increasingly censored.

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