site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5939 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 21, 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 stray comment on the culture-war thread from two weeks ago reminds me that, IMO, people on this website have been talking very loosely when they compare "urban", "suburban", and "rural" living.

The definitions endorsed by the United Nations are roughly as follows.

  • Urban: ≥ 1500 people per km2 (6.1 people per acre)

  • Suburban: ≥ 300 people per km2 (1.2 people per acre)

  • Rural: < 300 people per km2 (1.2 people per acre)

However, six people per acre actually isn't that dense. The US's IZC (International Zoning Code) is not necessarily authoritative, but in its single-family and two-family residential zones it permits density of up to six dwelling units per acre, implying 15 people per acre at 2.5 people per household.⁎

Likewise, a representative comment describes suburbs as follows:

Most suburbanites are not fleeing urban disorder; they're chasing suburbia. No amount of urban green space can ever replace a private backyard where you can grill and watch the kids and dog run around and plant a personal garden. No amount of smart planning can replace not sharing walls, floors, and ceilings with strangers. No high-quality public transit system can ever replace the freedom provided by American car culture.

Yet, if you look at a random US "city" in Google Maps, you will see lots of single-family houses with their own backyards and limited access to mass transit.

So, what do you actually mean when you say "urban", "suburban", and "rural" living? Maybe it's something like this.

  • Urban living: Row houses and apartment buildings, with incidental retail

  • Suburban living: Single-family and two-family houses, and nothing else

  • Rural living: Incidental single-family houses in land that is largely agricultural or undeveloped

⁎With tongue significantly less than halfway in cheek, I previously suggested that the threshold for a fourth "mega-city" category in the UN's framework might be set at 7500 people per km2 (30 people per acre). This matches the IZC's upper bound for multifamily residential zones (12 dwelling units per acre), past which commercial/residential zones with unlimited dwelling-unit density must be used instead.

Here in Russia the urban/rural divide is defined by employment. If 50% or more or the economically active population is employed in agriculture, it's a rural locality. Of course, this alone doesn't define suburban living, but I would define it like this: 50% or more of the economically active population is not employed in agriculture and their place of employment is located in another locality.

But this definition isn't great. Imagine a small town with 49 farmers and 51 people, out of which 49 commute to a large city to work. It's not rural and not suburban, which means it has to be urban, which is a silly idea. Maybe it should be defined like this:

If 50% or more are employed in agriculture, it's a rural locality;
Otherwise, if 50% or more of those not employed in agriculture work in a different locality, it's a suburban locality;
Otherwise, it's an urban locality.

Still not perfect, but I think it's a workable definition.

If 50% or more are employed in agriculture, it's a rural locality; Otherwise, if 50% or more of those not employed in agriculture work in a different locality, it's a suburban locality; Otherwise, it's an urban locality.

I don't think that works because there's plenty of small suburban or rural towns (in a way that we would definitely recognize them as such despite definitions) that are basically supported by a single big factory. People work locally, not in agriculture, but that doesn't make those tiny towns urban. And the tiny villages around them that supply some extra workers aren't necessarily suburban.

Outside of density, which could be used to make a hard criteria for analysis, but not necessarily capture the real spirit of the word, I would define the three as what proximity people are seeking there.

In urban localities, people want to be in proximity to other people. Density is a virtue here. In suburban localities, people want to be in proximity to the urban locality, but not other people. Density is not a virtue, but it will happen as there is a limit to how far people can be and meaningfully access the urban core. In rural localities, people want to be in proximity to open spaces (for economic purposes, like agricultural activity, for recreation or as an aesthetic preference).

Isn't a rural town an oxymoron?

Not in American usage. Rural town means it's not part of a larger metro, or at least not connected to it/too far for reasonable commuting. America would use the term 'farm town' for what you're envisioning(which may not be a town), a 'rural town' might be supported by tourism, mining, a single large employer, etc. A major city is something with suburbs and a suburb is attached to a major city(but may or may not have a population that commutes there for work; some suburbs have more people commuting in from the city than out to the city) and an exurb is a town detached from the major city but economically dependent on a large portion of its population commuting there. A 'village' sounds like something thirdworlders live in.

Not in American usage. Rural town means it's not part of a larger metro, or at least not connected to it/too far for reasonable commuting. America would use the term 'farm town' for what you're envisioning(which may not be a town), a 'rural town' might be supported by tourism, mining, a single large employer, etc.

It probably has something to do with American farming patterns and pervasive automobilization. To me a large employer like a mine or a factory automatically means "urban", because people will start settling next to it, and supporting businesses will follow. And the fewer households have cars, the more the town will need more of these local businesses to function.

In my state, towns and cities are incorporated; villages are not. There are some very affluent villages that are filled with people who just don’t want to mess with another layer of government.

A 'village' sounds like something thirdworlders live in.

I grew up in a farming town in the fly over states. We had a both a "Town of Bumfuckville" and a "Village of Bumfuckville" as two separate incorporated municipalities. The town was technically the larger outlying land, and the village was the area around the main-street, the branches, and a few of the neighborhoods surrounding it. No clue why it incorporated like that, but while they were technically distinct legal municipalities they did play together (along with other towns) for the school district.

No clue why it incorporated like that

It's practically a tradition in some parts of the country. (Pennsylvania townships are incorporated, unlike townships in some other states.)

NJ townships are also incorporated (and are by far the most common form of municipal government), but a few of the borough/township splits have joined in the past few years, notably Princeton (home of the eponymous university)

Oh that's hilarious. Is there a technical distinction between a Township and a Town?

It appears not.

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