site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   16063 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.

But it is something that is more likely to happen in a city than a suburb, which is where the comparison is. In a suburb I don't have to calculate the lenght of time it takes to go down an elevator or up a stairwell.

Again, I don't understand your point. As far as I know, the claim you were making is that a resident of an urban area needs a car to the same extent a suburbanite needs a car. The fact that any trip made by an urbanite typically includes a couple extra minutes to exit the building is true, of course. However I don't see how it's relevant to what you are trying to claim.

I would prefer to walk/bike. Cars are bulky, they separate you from the outside world, you have to find a parking space and worry that one mistake will create a huge expense and inconvenience to you and another person. I would much prefer to live in a neighborhood where I could bike 20 minutes to a grocery instead of drive 20 minutes to a grocery. This is my point

I can't really say much about your personal preferences, except to observe that everyone else has their preferences as well. And I am pretty sure that (1) most people find it impractical to live in the suburbs without a car; and (2) the same is not true for urban areas such as Manhattan.

To put things more succinctly, so what?

As far as I know, the claim you were making is that a resident of an urban area needs a car to the same extent a suburbanite needs a car.

No, that's not the claim. The claim is that life has inconveniences either way, and you're unfairly weighing the inconveniences of walking medium distances in comparison to the inconveniences of walking in a city.

To put things more succinctly, so what?

Exactly what I have been repeating about every other comment. The design of Redmond Ridge was really nice and I wish more developers copied what made it incentivize walking.

No, that's not the claim. The claim is that life has inconveniences either way, and you're unfairly weighing the inconveniences of walking medium distances in comparison to the inconveniences of walking in a city.

That's completely incorrect, but it's kind of a moot issue. See below.

Exactly what I have been repeating about every other comment. The design of Redmond Ridge was really nice and I wish more developers copied what made it incentivize walking.

That may be so, but it doesn't contradict anything I have said.

In any event, I am bowing out of this exchange. It appears that you are continually arguing against positions I haven't taken and arguments I haven't made, while at the same time your own position is too vague and shifting to permit a meaningful response.

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