site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11899 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.

"Assuming disrespect"? Danish politicians called Trump absurd and crazy because he wanted to negotiate a land deal. Danish politicians were far, far more disrespectful to Trump than Trump ever was to them, unless the concept of wanting to negotiate a land deal is inherently disrespectful.

unless the concept of wanting to negotiate a land deal is inherently disrespectful

See? You do get it, even if you don't agree with it.

That would be one of the craziest positions I have ever heard.

And there is the trademark American response to being told no. Congratulations. We have successfully laid bare the source of Trump's recent diplomatic problems.

I'm not even being sarcastic, really. This is literally it. This is how it went down, recreated live.

If you want to defend the position that asking to buy land is inherently disrespectful please do that in plain language.

He went to them for a deal and they said no. Then he threatened violence. If I go to you to negotiate purchasing your home and you say no, I don’t get to threaten to violently invade your home and take it from you for disrespecting me when I won’t take no for an answer. What you are not describing is a good faith negotiation. I don’t think you understand what a “deal” is. Or negotiations.

He went to them for a deal and they said no.

Yes, this is the part where they disrespected him, as I’ve elaborated. It doesn’t sound like you dispute this because the rest of your post is switching to a different argument.

If I go to you to negotiate purchasing your home and you say no, I don’t get to threaten to violently invade your home and take it from you for disrespecting me when I won’t take no for an answer.

America paid for that house. America secured Greenland when the Nazis invaded Denmark and the Americans later freed Denmark itself.

What you are not describing is a good faith negotiation. I don’t think you understand what a “deal” is. Or negotiations.

This is really dramatic. There is actually a deal that was negotiated and signed right in front of us.

Trump is incredibly disrespectful so it’s not very shocking that people are disrespectful back. You would have to be a total cuck not to return it in kind. And yes, you clearly don’t understand what good faith negotiations are or just have changed it to fit your needs. But this is par for the course for you as you are in the habit of changing the definition of words so Trump can never do anything but win.

You seem more invested in being offended by Trump than the actual politicians who signed a deal. I guess it's fine if you are incredibly offended by Trump, and I guess it's fine if you want to be offensive to Trump back, but I don't know that you can have your cake and eat it too. Trump wanted to negotiate for Greenland, the Danes became hostile, Trump got nasty back. What are we even disagreeing about?

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