site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23760 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Which part of her story am I supposed to not dismiss easily?

The part where she thought it might be fun to have a threesome with two guys and then a ton more drugs and alcohol were introduced and now she's in sexual contact with 7 men?

Some women might be into that but just because she wanted to do something a little slutty doesn't mean she signed up for getting legendarily slutty.

It is admirable that one of the men figured out there's something messed up about this and kicked them out of his place but how much happened before that point is still an open question.

The part where she thought it might be fun to have a threesome with two guys and then a ton more drugs and alcohol were introduced and now she's in sexual contact with 7 men?

How am I supposed to do that without dismissing the bit where she says "i luv u king" after the rape to the guy that supposedly raped her?

It is admirable that one of the men figured out there's something messed up about this and kicked them out of his place but how much happened before that point is still an open question.

It's really not given her initial statement. Also it doesn't matter, because she put herself in the situation, and actions have consequences. If I go on a roller coaster and feel scared at the top of the ride I can't sue the park for making it tall. I sat down on the ride myself.

I think it is not widely accepted that you can just keep offering drunk women more alcohol and drugs and then organize a gangbang. But we'll see.

The question isn’t whether she is drunk but whether she is incapacitated. Her judgement may have been off but there doesn’t seem to be evidence that (1) she was incapacitated or (2) was giving drugs without her knowledge. That isn’t rape.

Your frame also suggests that the men were knowingly plying her with drugs or booze to get her to do a gang bang of sorts AND that being drunk / high means she could not properly consent. But what if the men offering the woman drinks or drugs were also drunk / high? Why is it that their being drunk / high is insufficient to remove agency from their decision but is sufficient to remove agency from the woman?

This is the consensus fallacy. I am interested in why you think the woman should not be held accountable for her actions, but the more intoxicated boys should be.

The link doesn’t seem to work.

Looks like the tweet got taken down. It had this screenshot in it, apparently it's a text sent by the Jane Doe to one of the guys from the frat.

Well this made me go look something up.

Cornell stopped considering SAT scores for applicants seeking to start in Fall 2021. Last year they went to some hybrid policy.

Thanks for the link. If it's true, it's damaging for her case.

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