site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5546 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 28, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm surprised we still have faith that the UK wouldn't release people accused of being Iranian terrorists caught while they were about to do a terrorism on bail.

As @Goodguy pointed out, terrorists is likely not the correct term. The RAF Fairford was directly used to attack Iran, so it is about as legitimate of a target as it can possibly be if the attack was ordered by Iran.

Granted, to use people out of uniform posing as civilians is perfidy or some such, but that does not make them terrorists, merely war criminals.

On priors, I do not think the UK would release anyone on bail who was just about to commit a mass homicide. If they had vans full of explosives, they would be in jail until their trial (unless they were US operatives doing a false flag).

But from the summary, we know that there were a couple of hooded and masked men who blocked some road. The fact that someone called the bomb squad does not mean that they found anything. Apparently some have been accused of violations of the Explosives Act, but state authorities are incentivized to over- rather than under-charge them. It seems easier to charge someone and later silently drop the charges than to tell the people you evacuated that the canisters were filled with diesel not nitroglycerin (or whatever may be the case).

Granted, to use people out of uniform posing as civilians is perfidy or some such, but that does not make them terrorists, merely war criminals.

I'm not sure how criminal justice works in the UK (other than being continuously surprised at how light they can be, from personal experiences relayed to me by friends) but wouldn't they end up in a military prison if this were the case?

It's fine, they were probably just raping a 12 year country girl. Barely worth a citation.

Okay, knock it off.

For a lazy CW snipe, I’d normally give a short time-out to cool off. Your history makes it pretty clear that this isn’t a matter of someone getting your blood up. You are consistently dropping in with sneering one-liners against the spirit and letter of the rules.

Seven day ban. Be civil or don’t chime in at all.

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