site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13396 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 24, 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.

Dolly Parton might sadly be gone, but her legacy as one of America's greatest continues to live on in many ways. Today being a victory for free speech, with Texas Senate Bill 12, the "drag show ban" being ruled unconstitutional by Reagan appointee judge David Hittner for the pretty obvious reason that it violated the first amendment.

Dolly Parton's legacy is intertwined in this ruling in a few ways.

  1. She is cited by Hittner as one example of ‘erotic’ elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12,” citing Dolly Parton specifically with "“as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure”.

  2. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Brigitte Bandit is a drag queen known for doing Dolly Parton impressions.

  3. Parton herself had given Bandit a guitar covered in rhinestones after Bandit had testified at the Texas capitol against the drag ban.

It is important to note that the drag ban was on its face, "neutral" and didn't mention drag at all. The phrasing used was "sexually oriented performances", as Texas had tried to get around any textual blatant viewpoint discrimination. But expanding it to cover typical drag shows as stated for the intent required such vague wording that it could also possibly impact things exactly like Dolly Parton. If a impersonation of Dolly Parton by a man is too sexual, than Dolly Parton is too sexual.

Some other examples Hittner used included Miley Cyrus twerking, Lady Gaga, some more revealing cosplays, and swimmers in attractive bikinis. And even before the law was put into action, apparently The Texas House Research Organization had specifically listed cheerleading alongside concerts and theatrical performances as potential threats. It's so broad and the problems so well known ahead of time that it's possible this law was intended to fail to begin with, that it was red meat for censor loving voters.

Regardless of intent, there's one interesting takeaway from this then. If the state has to textually prohibit a large berth of standard constitutionally protected mainstream entertainment in order to target and censor drag shows, then the problem exists entirely within the attempted censoring of drag shows. If any drag show had a unique and non protected issue, that particular issue can be dealt with specific and focused laws.

Hittner also includes an answer for those who don't wish for them or their kids to see a drag show. Don't go. If you find something offensive, instead of using big government to censor it just don't show up and watch it. You have every right to boycott whatever you please.

If a impersonation of Dolly Parton by a man is too sexual, than Dolly Parton is too sexual.

This argument is like saying that if an impersonation of Barack Obama by a white man is racist, then being Barack Obama is racist.

That doesn't follow. In many contexts the act of impersonation itself is sexual, above and beyond the fact that there's sexuality because of the target of the impersonation.

This argument is like saying that if an impersonation of Barack Obama by a white man is racist, then being Barack Obama is racist.

Yes, this argument would be equally bad. An impersonation of Barack Obama by a white man is not inherently racist. Also, racist speech is protected by the First Amendment.

In many contexts the act of impersonation itself is sexual, above and beyond the fact that there's sexuality because of the target of the impersonation.

I'm not sure this is true. But even if it were true, there are many contexts where impersonation is not intrinsically sexual, and the law provides no mechanism to distinguish these contexts. The law does not even mention impersonation as a factor to be considered in the analysis.

Also, racist speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Not if we simply call it "disorderly conduct".

Technically the jury found her speech towards the camera man rose to the level of "fighting words" (a First Amendment exception). She was acquitted on the original count against the child and his father.

You can search here for the case (I can't find a way to get a link). Case number 55-CR-25-6656. From the Jury instructions (document #58) as regards the charge she was convicted of:

DEFINED
Under Minnesota law, whoever, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it will tend to alarm, anger, or disturb others, or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others, is guilty of a crime.

ELEMENTS

The elements of this crime are:

First, the defendant engaged in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

If you find that the defendant's conduct consisted only of offensive, obscene, or abusive language, you must also find that the words used were “fighting words.” Speech is not “fighting words” merely because it is racist. “Fighting words” are words that constitute personally offensive epithets that, when spoken to the ordinary person, under the particular circumstances of the case, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction or incite an immediate breach of the peace by those to whom such words are addressed. The offense may be based upon the utterance of fighting words alone, without resulting in actual violence. The focus is upon the nature of the words and the circumstances in which they were spoken, rather than upon the actual response.

Second, the defendant knew or believed or had reasonable grounds to know that the conduct would, or could, tend to alarm, anger, disturb, provoke an assault by, or provoke a breach of the peace by others.

Third, the defendant's act took place in a public or private place.

Fourth, the defendant's act took place on or about April 28, 2025, in Olmsted County. If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. If you find that any element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty.

The instructions are identical for the count on which she was acquitted.

Technically the jury found her speech towards the camera man rose to the level of "fighting words" (a First Amendment exception). She was acquitted on the original count against the child and his father.

In other words, racist speech was not protected by the First Amendment, yes?

Are there fighting words for white people? Republicans? Christians?

The Supreme Court has been backing away from the fighting words doctrine since 1970. Since states can't enact a stricter doctrine than the one the federal government uses, I doubt this will survive appeal.

The Supreme Court is free to amuse themselves in whatever way they see fit.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
I don't believe in the First Amendment. That is, I do not believe it would significantly protect me from the things I would actually need protecting from if I were to exercise the rights it purports to enshrine, and convolutions about how the extremely awful things that would have a very high probability of happening to me don't count because they weren't what the First Amendment was intended for don't actually interest me.

I cannot speak freely. I have not been able to speak freely for a very long time, and I do not think this is likely to change in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I do not care if you cannot speak freely either. If the First Amendment is a dead letter for me, and it is, then it should be a dead letter for you too. If it isn't, then that is a problem that needs fixing, and it's pretty clear to me that it's not going to be fixed by the restoration of strong principles and norms of robust free speech and mutual toleration, so that leaves the other way.

Usually, the counter-argument is something along the lines of "you just want to be able to use the N-word without consequences". But this could not be further from the truth! I do not think I have ever spoken or written the n-word to another person, and the only time I've actually spoken it aloud when alone was when singing along to Nina Gordon's cover of NWA, many years ago. I would never do that now, of course, because it is simply, obviously true that words are powerful magic and can ruin your whole life if used incautiously, and obviously I don't want my life ruined. I have no interest in gaining protection from dark magic I gain no benefit from employing in any case; I would much, much rather see illegitimate protection removed from other classes of dark-magic practitioners who now enjoy immunity for their abuses.

I do not think I have ever spoken or written the n-word

I've never said the n-word. To the point where I haven't and even can't say it aloud when I'm totally alone, despite intellectually not believing in magic words.

My wife jokes that it's because I'm scared (((they))) are listening.

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