site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   22720 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.

In the same vein, we have this comedy skit.

[Two Philadelphia police officers] were traveling… in a marked patrol car when they observed Appellant standing on the sidewalk with the handle of a firearm “printing through his T-shirt”. Officer Heeney stopped the car and Officer Moore asked Appellant “if he had a permit to carry”. Appellant responded, “Carry what?” Officer Moore replied, “What’s in the front?” Appellant began to reach in his left pocket and stated, “My keys.” Officer Moore asked again, “No, what’s in the front?” Appellant said, “I don’t want no trouble, I’m sorry, officer.” Officer Moore questioned Appellant, “Do you have a permit or not?” Appellant replied, “I’m not carrying anything.” Officer Moore exited the vehicle, and Appellant began to walk away and put his left arm in front of his body. Officer Moore commanded Appellant not to run, approached him, and grabbed a firearm out of Appellant’s front waistband. Officer Moore again asked Appellant if he had a permit to carry. Appellant told Officer Moore that he had it in his vehicle, and that it was not on his person. Officer Moore conducted a National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) search and learned that Appellant did not have a license to carry a firearm. Officer Moore arrested Appellant and charged Appellant with Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License and Carrying Firearms on Public Streets in Philadelphia.

Officer Moore testified that he has been a police officer for seven years on the same assignment in the 22nd District, he has made over 150 arrests, he has made at least five firearms arrests in a two-block span of the area where he arrested Appellant, he has made a few dozen arrests in the same area, and the area is violent with numerous shootings and has a police car assigned there around the clock due to gun violence. Officer Moore further testified that since he has been a Philadelphia police officer he has encountered “more than 50, maybe more than 100” individuals who have lawfully carried firearms and has “never had somebody that lawfully carried a gun tell me that he wasn’t carrying anything when I asked them if they had a permit when I could clearly see he had a gun”. Officer Moore explained that he has encountered “at least 20” people who have said that they’re not carrying anything when they are clearly carrying a firearm “and they all ended in arrests” because they did not have a license to carry.

Under state precedent (concurrences: 1 2), following federal precedent, the mere presence of a concealed gun does not give rise to reasonable suspicion that a law is being broken. If upon seeing the gun the officer had immediately performed an investigative detention, then the evidence would have been suppressed. However, in this case the officer started with a "mere encounter", and the man's blatant lies in response to the officer's questions, in addition to the man's abortive flight and the officer's personal knowledge of the area's high crime rate, then gave rise to reasonable suspicion under which the officer could conduct an "investigative detention" (telling the man to stop and pulling the gun out of the man's waistband).

(I wanted to post this in the next Friday Fun Thread. But it's too relevant to this culture-war-thread top-level post for me to post it there. Alas…)

oWo what's this? Do you have a permit to carry or are you just happy to see me?

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