site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7d ago (text post)   23292 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A very lengthy reply which doesn't really contain much substance. The simple response is that yes we have to make decisions about what is bad and what is not, and we should not be paralyzed about parades of alleged horribles laid out by sexual deviants in defense of their deviancy. The founders were not confused by this, people were not in 1920.

This is not Gimli threatening to chop of Eomer's head for not calling Galadriel the most beautiful, but relenting because Eomer prefers Arwen, and has this chosen the evening over the morning. No, you have chosen to flaunt some orcish beast and asked me to contemplate whether that monstrosity is perhaps as beautiful as Galadriel. We need not heed such spurious arguments.

(You) have chosen to flaunt some orcish beast woman A and asked me to contemplate whether that monstrosity is perhaps as beautiful as Galadriel woman B

My retort writes itself.

It is anticipated given your earlier post. The idea that all ideas are equal, one thing cannot be objectively more beautiful than another is just cultural relativism, which ends with unworkable nonsense. If you are pretending seeing a hairy man's ass in a dress with a red thong is as good as seeing Ursula Andress ascend from the water of the Bahamas, your judgment is clearly so impaired that you can't be trusted to make calls on more important matters, such as criminal law. You are not only very likely to adopt the mindset of bicycle meme guy, you are prone to universalize this dysfunctional form of thought and decriminalize bike theft in its entirety. In fact, you are probably going to be seriously contemplating eliminating private property in its entirety.

If you are pretending seeing a hairy man's ass in a dress with a red thong is as good as seeing Ursula Andress ascend from the water of the Bahamas

You misunderstand. Ursula Andress's socioeconomic interest is the reason why I must pretend seeing a hairy man's ass in a dress is good, and why I must pretend desiring a younger, hotter version of her is bad.

In your original statement, you conflated the two by saying

They are obviously bad, like child obscenity is obviously bad.

And the answer I had for you is that you should stop conflating the two, for your concept of "child obscenity" is both trivially gamed and unequally enforced (by women who fear their own ugliness/inevitable devaluation that they ban anything more beautiful than them [with that excuse] and equate ugliness to beauty) with the ultimate intention to compromise your proper exercise of political power.

So the fact you even have it as a category has resulted in your kids being forced to see the drag shows in the first place, whether or not you're simping respecting your (present or future) wife's power by equating them as equally bad.

I brought receipts to back up my claims, but here's one more thought for you: the places that produce the highest amount of child obscene content has the lowest problem with drag shows (and, though they may have many cross-dressers- even an above-average amount at times, especially in their media- they aren't shoving themselves in your face or behaving anything like a Western woman-approved-drag-queen does).

So I assert that the men and women there, for a variety of reasons, appear to respect each other's interests more. I hope that intentionally hampering your ability to understand why that is- because you're afraid or offended, because it's against your religion, or because you're just plain lazy- has few consequences for your future children, for your ideas of how you must protect them are incoherent.

"The bunch of exceptions that were invented contrary to 1A worked 100 years ago" was literally what paved the way for your modern problems in the first place. A mere retvrning to those exceptions won't solve anything.

California seems to be doing bad at child obscene material production (as in they do a lot) and transing kids (again do a lot) and showing kids drag (they do it a lot).

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