site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   13679 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.

No, the very real, and not at all supposed hoax, was that Trump called white supremacists "very fine people" by saying there are some on both sides of the Charlottesville controversy. You're trying to rewrite history.

The point I'm making is independent of the truth-of-the-matter of what Trump actually said about Charlottesville. The point is that the way the narrative played out shows that there is no united right-wing movement equivalent to that on the left. If there were, you would've found that the dominant right-wing narrative was one of the following:

  • President Trump actually does secretly support us; he just can't come out and say it just yet. But I have contacts on the inside who know what Trump really thinks. Trust the plan, eyes on the prize.
  • How dare President Trump say that there were "very fine people" on the pro-statue-removal side? We call upon President Trump to unequivocally condemn all the subversive anarchist elements bent on destroying our proud heritage and civilization.
  • We are disappointed that President Trump has not full-throatedly endorsed our movement. We will not support him until he does.

(In fact, a handful of people did say this, but they were relegated to the fringe on the right.)

contributions to science, art, philosophy, or culture generally, which is what comes to my mind when someone brings up "creating things"

Where are the right-wing institutions for these things? All academic faculties (with the possible exception of economics) are left-dominated. Same with art museums and film festivals. Maybe if you're right-leaning you'd denounce such things as "not real art" - maybe so, but then, who is preserving the "classical" cultural heritage? Where are the right-wing symphony orchestras and Shakespearean theater companies?

The right and left polices the “far” right wing (no one wants to be called a crypto Nazi) thereby prioritizing moderation as opposed to purity. The far left is tolerated and thus more and more results in purity spirals.

Have you considered that the establishment/conventional right just doesn’t agree with aryan race warriors rather than being intimidated into moderation?

You don’t need to be an aryan race warrior before the race establishment right gets upset.

I have, but they have dissuaded me from believing that by adopting the same cancellation tactics they've spent a decade decrying.

The point I'm making is independent of the truth-of-the-matter of what Trump actually said about Charlottesville.

I don't think you should get to say things that are flatly untrue as you making your broader point.

Where are the right-wing institutions for these things? All academic faculties (with the possible exception of economics) are left-dominated.

And what are they doing with that domination? They might be holding on to science by the skin of their teeth, but there has been no worthwhile contribution to any of the other fields for years if not decades.

And what are they doing with that domination? They might be holding on to science by the skin of their teeth, but there has been no worthwhile contribution to any of the other fields for years if not decades.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying this. That conservatives are so inept that they can't create their own institutions despite the existing liberal ones not doing anything worthwhile for decades? Seems like low-hanging fruit if you ask me.

Two points: First at a minimum, it's the same point you are trying to make. How is not being able to achieve anything worthwhile while holding these institutions any less inept. Thus any criticism kf conservatives of thisnsort is hollow.

Second, I think holding the institutions gives you an advantage. It's a lot easier to do something while holding them the it is to start them from scratch. As an example just look at the utter failure to offer a relevant alternative to Twitter after Musk bought it, despite all the huffing and puffing, and all the media coordinating to try to move people to other networks. If you are holding all the institutions, and achieving nothing, you are more inept.

I don't think you should get to say things that are flatly untrue as you making your broader point.

I wasn't intending to make any claim with the word "supposed" about the underlying truth of the supposition, only that there are some people who are supposing. If that word is unclear, you can substitute "alleged" or "claimed".

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