site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   22326 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.

Not necessarily. There could be other thieves, like the other billionaires and so on.

I would have purchased twitter and more if he hadn't stolen that money from me.

You said Musk specifically stole the money used to purchase Twitter from you. He did not do that, because you never had the money to buy Twitter, nor any plausible route to the money to buy Twitter.

Now you are claiming that there "could be other thieves, like the other billionaires and so on". But no individual billionaire and no group of billionaires have stolen the purchase price of Twitter from you, because again, there is no plausible alternate story by which you ever might have possessed value equal to the purchase price of Twitter.

You said

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

We have no way of knowing "what you meant" other than the words you post, and there is no path from the words you are posting to anything resembling a coherent argument. You are not lost in the sauce of some labyrinthine argument here; I routinely write single paragraphs longer than your collective contributions to this thread. You appear to be blathering, and then getting performatively offended when people point out that your statements are rediculous.

Why not? Am I dumber than Elon Musk?

That seems likely to me, yes.

My arguments are coherent. I think you're struggling for one with the socially constructed nature of money. Anyone can be a billionaire. It's an argument as to who should be.

I reiterate: no individual billionaire and no group of billionaires have stolen the purchase price of Twitter from you, because again, there is no plausible alternate story by which you ever might have possessed value equal to the purchase price of Twitter.

Note the word value there. It's entirely possible for you to be a multi-trillionaire, provided you're a multi-trillionaire in Zimbabwean dollars or some equivalent. I do not believe there is a plausible path by which you might have had discretionary access to even a small fraction of the exchangeable value Musk possesses. "anyone" cannot be a "billionaire" in the sense you appear to intend here, because while we all could coordinate to arbitrarily provide massive amounts of exchange value to a random person, we won't, and don't, and haven't.

You have no plausible argument why you should be a billionaire, ie, have massively-elevated resources relative to almost all other living humans.

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