site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   20634 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 31, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I noticed that you conveniently ignored my question related to the highly scientific qualification of transgenderism as mentally sound by competent psychology experts.

There are plenty of competent people in Psychiatry and plenty in Psychology as well. By your own admission, these bright, competent, highly-educated experts may spend up to 2 weeks a year in training meant to erase racial or sexist biases that their lying eyes have implanted in them.
Very few of them ever complain about this state of affair, or under the cover of pseudo-anonymity on such platforms.
The ones that do, once in a while, point out that the emperor is naked, end up in big trouble with both their own regulation agencies and the government, as was demonstrated between say 2020 and 2023.

They may have very good understanding of what has firm and shaky evidence, but they are not always compelled to share that understanding with the wider public, and sometimes, perhaps, they disguise it in favor of what their Masters ask them to.

With respect to the specific issue at hand only part of this is medical at all, a large chunk of it is multi-century long discussions in the fields of law, politics, and ethics about how governance, criminality, and the law work. Coming into an intellectual tradition of some of the wisest and smartest people who have ever lived trying to figure out how to organize society and going "IDK insanity defense is bad" is profoundly ill advised.

Or maybe going 'IDK maybe black people are just as smart people?' Oh that's not ill-advised, that's just uh socially-acceptable.
Now, what was socially-acceptable way back when experts were still respected? One of the fathers of modern neurology, Jean-Martin Charcot was all about hysteria, you know the 'b# be crazy, yo' disease. Why'd we give up on that again?
Same profoundly scientific reason that the threshold for mental retardation was lowered to 70 in the 70s to conveniently not have half of the African-American population qualify as mentally retarded?

I didn't bring up transgenderism because it's not relevant. Medicine has blindspots just like everyone else does. Blindspots aren't the same as blindness.

Starting by blaming politics/wokeness/feminism/whatever is retarded. Investigate first then blame PRN. Sometimes a blindspot is pumped in Pharma money, but you can't just assume all drugs were only approved because of Pharma. That's stupid.

Insanity pleas are part of a long running attempt at codifying criminal responsibility that has been argued about through many waves of predominant social ideologies.

Also hysteria doesn't work the way you think it does, and bringing it up is a feminist complaint anyway?

Medicine has blindspots just like everyone else does. Blindspots aren't the same as blindness.

How many blindspots should the common man assume that the experts have? Would an expert know how many blindspots they have themselves?

Starting by blaming politics/wokeness/feminism/whatever is retarded.

It's a good starting point when examining anything coming out of academia after the Long March through the Institutions.
Experts have been telling us that they are activists, that they are biased, that not being biased in the same way they are is against Science, etc. We are listening to the experts.
Who do you trust more to keep a secret in confidence, the guy with a rainbow or the one who drops the nword in front of you?

Also hysteria doesn't work the way you think it does, and bringing it up is a feminist complaint anyway?

I probably don't have a good understanding of hysteria and other mental issues that have been credited or discredited in history in accordance with political, cultural or social changes.

The number of times I've seen people mix together psychology and psychiatry, or argue that somehow this case was going to excuse women from murder charges because of natural hormone variations is unreal.

Why not? Women are already excused from murder charges for their prepartum condition, they call it 'reproductive healthcare'.
Why should this new cultural development not end up like the previous cultural developments, such as the 'sex change' or 'soul mixed up at birth' lunacy?
What makes you confident that this slope is not that slippery?

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