site banner
PaperclipPerfector  21hr ago (text post)   3037 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 5, 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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Tomorrow morning, is she going to wish she didn't do this?" I think is the question they should have asked themselves, and I think it was foreseeable that this would be a wise question to consider.

That's the problem with everyone involved being drunk and high... Of the two men in the initial threesome, one fell asleep and couldn't perform, and the other started vomiting. No one had the mental capacity to consider the next morning.

Good standard, but even in this case not good enough. She wished she didn't do it weeks later after rumors circulated around campus and she was disinvited from the Halloween party.

People are going to occasionally regret the most milquetoast inoffensive sexual encounters for a myriad of reasons, some of which are impossible for the other party to reasonably predict. Is it potential rape if I have sex on the third date, then learn something afterwards that makes me unwilling to pursue a further relationship?

Imagine that it's the night before the events in the story and you are tasked with arguing the case for "the line is the woman not having regretted last night's activities" against someone who is arguing "the line is consent". What evidence would you be able to bring to bear compared to the evidence that your debate opponent would be able to bring to bear? Remember, the debate is not what the line should be, but what the line is.

Would you be able to produce evidence that outweighs the legions of institutions who loudly proclaim consent being the line?

The line here is "don't be an idiot; the vast majority of women will regret having a train run on them, even if they say they're cool with it in the moment." If someone starts bringing in legalese about consent, you repeat. Ideally you've earned the respect of your frat brothers, and they'll listen: it's most likely they're just naive, not malicious.

At the time of the event, what was the publicly available evidence that the line was what you say it is? Imagine you're debating a sex-negative feminist whose position is "at Cornell, the line is consent and that's a bad thing -- we should change it". What would you say to convince onlookers that she's wrong and that she already has her preferred policy in place? Heck, there are plenty of people in this thread who are arguing that the current line is consent and that's a bad thing -- are they wrong about the current line being consent?

I think you are just factually wrong about what the line is. The line is consent. You can wish it was something else, but it's not. Until you change it, you (or the rest of the lynch mob) shouldn't get to enforce your desired line.

Foreseeable to you, the adult, worldly motte-poster. To a 20 year old raised in an environment of sex-positive, "sex is just about feeling good and nothing else" consent feminism? The girl herself seems to have thought she was doing something brave and good.

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