site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   6126 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can we just deport him? And no I am not talking about a Somalian, but Alexander Ovechkin. He just appeared in a Russian political ad. When asked why he did that he replied, “I’m Russian, I support my country”. But here’s the thing the west and to a lesser extent the US is at war with Russia. Undeclared and without ground troops, but we are contributing financing, seized Russian assets, and have and probably still provide intelligence to the Ukrainian side. I think supporting a foreign government at war with America is perfectly fine grounds to deport someone.

The counter argument and I think a reasonable opinion for letting him stay is that cultural exchange makes peace easier. So there are solid grounds for letting him stay. I probably take the opinion that letting him play hockey in the US is better for US foreign policy than deportation.

From a cultural war perspective I would love Trump to deport him and make the lefties who “support Ukraine” make arguments for why Ovechkin in ICE shackles is a bad thing. Meh “free speech”. I did the AI thing and it sounds like he doesn’t have US citizenship but if he did he would make a perfect test case for denaturalization. Declaring yourself to have loyalties to a foreign government at war with the US seems absolutely perfect for denaturalization.

Also, nice culture war on Trump is a Russian agent by deporting a Russian. And it fits with the meme “we need them for the sports ball team”.

He’s just a perfect test case for deportation since his politics are against the US left instead of their Hamas adjacent friends who a broad swath of the left supports.

No,

Unfortunately the "native" people who tirelessly attempt to destroy the country are far worse and far greater in number than a few foreign celebrities running their mouths. And taking a side in a proxy conflict that the US is mostly phoning it in on is the least of our worries.

Yes we need mass deportations and the destruction of foreign tribal blocs. Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies. But going after a foreigner who supports his own country, that we are not even technically at war with, who is here on temporary work visa and doesn't show any intention to immigrate, is really not it. We should celebrate foreigners loving their own country, especially if they love their own country enough to go back.

Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies.

Who would these be?

Well, don't answer that. Better yet, don't post like that.

There's probably an acceptable effortpost that could be made that argues that some people are traitors and we should execute them, but you need to put effort into it, not just imply that your political enemies should be killed in a free-form rant.

That's such a noncentral part of the entire post that elaborating would be a distraction. In fact it should be emphasized that irregardless of what that group is, the argument is still valid.

If you drop "Also, we should kill my political enemies" into an otherwise acceptable post, that's the part that's going to get modded.

If you remove the foreigners who support foreign interests then they wouldn’t be campaigning for things some silly natives fall for.

Lefty(Bryan Caplan): We should have open borders and let in infinite migrants.

me: many of them support interests against American interests or loyalty to their home country. They will cause problems in domestic US politics

Lefty: our magic dirt will solve this problem. We can give them full political rights.

Bryan Caplan is not a lefty. He is for open borders. He would be happy to get rid of the welfare state as well.

Overton window moved. That makes him a lefty today. Maybe that makes him more of a homeless person now. The number 1 position he advocates for is a lefty position today.

No, that's not enough to make him a lefty. It makes him just a liberal, though right-liberal, and the right is moving away from liberalism, albeit still split. The left are mostly not liberals - in fact have not been liberals for longer - and don't want him.

There is no 'liberal' or 'classical liberal' position in history that includes open borders. As he justifies it, it's more of an extreme libertarian belief, and hardline libertarians have always been politically homeless from the moment they diverged from right-liberalism (which included freedom of the individual, but also the common good of the nation and the maintenance of tradition through non-governmental means). I believe Caplan would also describe himself as a libertarian.

Fine call him homeless. We don’t want him either.

Though would be noted his primary position “open borders” has strong support in the most activist left circles.

"I totally support this thing that has happened before, is likely happening now, and some people want to increase to a horrendous degree. I also support this thing that has never happened before and the last time someone tried it got struck down by a judge despite being passed with nearly 60% of the votes."

You'll excuse me if I no longer give people like Caplan the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking as someone who called himself a libertarian for 20 years, the logic was always:

  1. Open Borders
  2. Welfare State
  3. Functional Economy.

Pick two. Option number 2 is essentially non-negotiable at this point, and absolutely no one has even the faintest glimmer of a fantasy of a plan to actually address it, which means adding option 1 necessarily closes off option 3. Any libertarian failing to grasp this, at this point, is just a retard or engaged in enemy action.

Infinite migrants support lefty causes irregardless of relation to their home country

Fixing something “We should love foreigners loving the own country……who live in their own country”

We are at war with Russia. The war has likely majority support on both sides of the aisle.

“I don’t want foreigners aiding our enemies we are at war with having access to US labor markets” should not be a controversial take.

His wages are essentially an export. I don’t want his salary likely 10 million a year going to the Russian economy. All that revenue would go to an American or Canadian who loves America if we deported him.

And yes I support deporting all the tribal blocs that act in their own interests and for their home countries interests. Ovechkin is an example of the rich and powerful so symbolically is a great person to make example of for when we deporting a 100k Somalian fraudsters.

How is this any different than a member of ISIS doing fundraising and recruiting soldiers to the cause? I don’t support giving that person a US visa.

Someone else mentioned brain drain often benefiting the US. To clue it would be extremely idiotic to have a brilliant Iranian nuclear engineer working in the US who is loyal to the Iranian regime. We should not let that person into the country.

We are not at war with Russia. We are at war with Iran, but not Russia.

Even more we need the death of all native traitors and enemies.

One might wonder at how far this sentiment will be extended.

I suppose that if the long-prophesied Civil War 2 becomes a reality, I might have a interesting time trying to evade being gulaged by left-wingers for not being a left-winger and evade being Pinochet'd by right-wingers for not being a right-winger.

Luckily for me, years of participating in online politics discussions have given me the ability to convincingly pretend to be either a left-winger or a right-winger. A skill that could prove useful in such a scenario.

It would be better if I could just sit back and watch the left-wingers and the right-wingers fight while I munch on popcorn, but sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I've seen it; it's not pretty.

First they came for the ________, and I spoke up even though I was not a ________, because I read the rest of the poem!

Really? Was it terrible in Portugal? Chile? Why go straight to Hitler?

It might be ugly, but it's better than the alternative.

Are you literally advocating for the killing of your polirical adversaries? Ot is this the usual hyperbole?

The alternative to

the death of all native traitors and enemies

is the overwhelming and replacement of me, my family, and my people in our homeland. So yes, I would say killing political adversaries is preferable to that. After all, the first and fiercest punishment ought to fall first on the traitor, second on the enemy.

If you want killing political enemies to become less urgent, maybe we can slow down the foreign invasion.

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