site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23705 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It seems to me the problem with law is its universality. We need hard paternalism for the bottom 10% and classic liberalism with protections for everyone else

We kind of have that with parole eh? Parolees can be searched for far less than the rest of us.

Hypothetical: you're now in the bottom 10%. How do you live differently under hard paternalism? How do you qualify to leave the bottom 10%?

I interpret "bottom 10%" as being unable to follow obvious rules like no assault or theft (without a reasonable excuse like self-defense or genuine need), especially breaking the same rule multiple times, with strong evidence. Maybe this isn't actually 10% or what the parent implied, but it's my criteria for facing the real law, like "hard paternalism".

I'm sympathetic even to these people, and feel bad arguing for their harm. But society must do something or (there's overwhelming evidence) more people will suffer. And the only way I can imagine myself in their shoes is after brain damage that would make present me want to restrain future me ahead of time (similar to how I may prefer euthanasia over decades of dementia).

How do you live differently under hard paternalism?

Some way to ensure you can't assault or steal from innocents. You could live in a confined area with others guilty of your crime (i.e. ghetto - I try not to hide under euphemisms), a confined apartment (i.e. cell, where you can be alone or with friends), or walk among official civilization with restraints that prevent your crime.

How do you qualify to leave the bottom 10%?

If you can convincingly demonstrate that something has changed so that you'll no longer assault or steal. e.g. spending enough time not attempting to, even under pressure, especially if restrictions can temporarily be kept but moved out of your perception.

You could live in a confined area with others guilty of your crime (i.e. ghetto - I try not to hide under euphemisms)

1997
New York City
Is a walled
maximum security
prison.

Breaking out
is impossible.

Breaking in
is insane.

Yes, and the way that this should be implemented is swift and sure punishment with escalation ladders.

For example, let's say you are caught shoplifting. First offense, a warning. Then 1 day in jail. Then 30. Then 1 year.

Instead the law is like "Crime carries a sentence of 5 years but they probably won't prosecute and if they do the judge will probably let you out with a warning, unless they decide not to for some reason and throw the book at you".

You get bizarre cases where a first offender is thrown in jail for a long time and the (more common) scenario where a repeat violent criminal is released dozens of times. Three strikes you're out was the right idea, we just need better refinement.

Anarcho-tyranny can defeat even that. Your white guy goes to prison the third time some cashier fails to scan everything in his cart and he doesn't catch them. His protestations that it is not his fault fall on the judge's deaf ears. People of the proper race just walking out the door with a bunch of stuff don't get prosecuted at all and the escalation ladder doesn't matter.

Draconian law-n-order stuff just makes life worse for the people the law is meant to control, without controlling the people it wasn't controlling anyway.

The store ain't calling no cops when you'll pay for the goods.

If they assume you were trying to put one over on them, they will.

Instead the law is like "Crime carries a sentence of 5 years but they probably won't prosecute and if they do the judge will probably let you out with a warning, unless they decide not to for some reason and throw the book at you".

This proposal won't prevent that. They would still not be required to prosecute (and a rule saying 'they must prosecute' is a bad idea for obvious reasons) and it just moves the discretion from the judge to the prosecuter, and the judge could declare you not guilty anyway.

This seems the way. Swift and sure punishment is how you create very safe societies with modern policing. Look at Dubai many people here insist that a society full of Arabs and Indians can be so safe and yet it is.

Especially when punishments that could seriously deter/derail the lives of the top 90% are essentially lettuce floggings to people in the bottom 10%. You can pile infinite fines on somebody who's already subsiding purely on government aid and cash jobs

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