site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16506 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.

In practice, the issue seemed to be mostly framed in terms of identity politics, along the lines of “mistrial caused by obstinate man who refused to listen to reasonable majority of mostly women”. Substitute “black man” and “white women” and this loses its cachet: suddenly it reads like a proud person of color bravely standing up against a group of Karens trying to browbeat him into submission.

I'm surprised at which side of the culture war this falls on. Alternate incendiary explanations: black guy was too dumb/lawless to understand that his purpose on the jury was to apply the particular oddities of MA law when it comes to insanity and instead just nullified the law?

If Xitter can have an endless circle jerk about how online white women are making sexual bigoted arguments for why women should be treated like infants because of their hormones, why can't they also make racial bigot arguments for why black people can't weigh complex topics in a jury box? The white people upheld law and order. The black guy went with his gut.

Since we're rehashing the case, do see Throwaway05's comment from the other week:

  • A common response to the media conversation around this case is to criticize women for brainless takes that do not engage with the information about the case or expert commentary. This includes me, I've been frustrated.
  • It seems like actual experts in this field are landing on a psychotic process (most likely postpartum psychosis) as the explanation of events. That is to say she is legitimately not guilty by reason of insanity. This moved the needle for me. How can I criticize women for being retarded and not listening to actual information if I don't listen to experts and people with specific knowledge of the case.
  • As a legal matter, it sounds like the expectation from knowledgable parties has been a hung jury or not guilty by reason of insanity because of structural, jurisdiction specific aspects of this type of defense in MA.

As a legal matter, a dumb juror might just well say "fuck all that shit I'm not letting you use a bunch of fancy words to try to trick me into saying that bitch walks"

I don't believe this myself. I'm not sure what I believe. I barely followed this case. But the culture war spectacle around it is fascinating.

  1. There are no true experts—the psych field is a mess scientifically and predisposed to view everything aberrant as mental illness.

  2. The legal experts expected a hung jury in large part because of the support for Clancy.

  3. It is really hard to look at the facts and not get to beyond reasonable doubt. To explicate:

A. The standard is that Clancy either didn’t know what she was doing was criminal or she was incapable of not engaging in the activity.

B. The evidence is:

I. Clancy had thoughts of harming her kid for awhile. II. Clancy planned out her murder if the kids including making sure the husband was out of the house. III. Clancy in the middle of the murder spree took a call from her husband and was not demonstrating any signs of craziness. IV. Clancy only heard a voice allegedly once and only once.

C. So here we see that she had desires to commit the crime previously and was able to not commit the crime.

D. The defense would have to make the argument that she had a mental break (instead of just fighting off the intrusive thoughts) that means she either no longer knew it was wrong or lacked the capacity to not commit the act.

E. But the defense has a problem. She acted with forethought before the murders. So she was able to deter the compulsion to murder for a time and was trying to hide it suggesting she knew it was wrong. Also the planning indicates she still retained some thinking (ie didn’t have a full break with reality). While there is an argument that in very abnormal situations crazy people can remain perfectly rational in their actions towards their crazy goals, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt; not beyond any doubt.

F. But to make it even worse, the phone call that interrupted the murders seems to again undercut that she was incapable.

G. So here the defense has to argue this wasn’t a continuation of her prior ideations AND that notwithstanding her tactical rationality both before and during the murders she didn’t know what she was doing or could not control her actions.

H. Add to that the oddity of hearing the voice once and only once (pretty convenient).

I. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The common example is better ten guilty go free than one innocent go to jail. That suggests about a 90% certainty.

J. Given these facts, it is really hard to say there is more than 10% doubt that Clancy could not control her actions or didn’t know they were wrong

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