site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12834 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 7, 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.

This seems like such a superficial take.

In the end, none of this happened since his death got bogged down in endless conspiracies.

So if there had not been conspiracies, the 'true conservatives' could have shown themselves and done the right thing? Yeah, I'm pressing X to doubt.

If there's one thing more delusional than the Q anon phenotype that exists on the right, it's the self proclaimed elite human capital on the opposite end.

'Conspiracies' and anti-authoritarianism have always been a thing on the right. This has nothing to do with MAGA. If anything MAGA is just a symptom of how poorly America has been managed. This is what decades of American right wing political theory has lead us to. On that front I don't think there's anything less worthy of respect than a gaggle of self proclaimed kings who try to justify their right to rule through how much they despise the peasants.

If EHC was a cognizable group of people, Hanania would not be a part, nor would he be capable of discerning who qualified to be in the group.

I’ll give him the respects I think he is EHC. Also probably put myself in that group. He was a really good writer with interesting opinions. It’s how he built a following. He’s changed whose he writing too and gone down market and thinks he’s the protector of inconvenient truths.

Still a wordcell EHC but he does have talent.

Jake Paul some reason reminds me of him since I started seeing him promoting betr. He’s already rich with plenty of ways to monetize, but choosing to monetize your brand promoting gambling just feels wrong to me. Just reminds me of Hannania going down the path he is now. Feels wrong to sacrifice the truth for outrage and probably money.

I guess I accept politicians will play political games and be dishonesty and build outrage. But I just don’t see a point of reading a writer that wants to be inflammatory. I guess the media has a niche here too msnbc/fox have definitely done it. And it makes money. But I think Hannania did have actual talent so I am sad to see him go down that path.

I used to hook up with a Latina tattoo artist who lived in the neighbourhood Hanania grew up in. Fifteen minutes of driving from the freeway to her house and back were enough to realize why it would give a fellow permanently crippling class anxiety.

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