site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   11423 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.

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!

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

Are you literally advocating for the killing of your politcal 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.

...the overwhelming and replacement of me, my family, and my people in our homeland.

You are not being 'replaced' just because people exist near you while being of more distant blood-relation than you are used to.

My family has lived here for fifty years. I see the names of other people in my apartment building when I go to pick up my parcels. There hasn't been any English names for years, at least half a decade. In the local park, English is rarely spoken and most women wear hijabs.

If one thing vanishes from a place as another appears there instead, what word would you like me to use if not 'replacement'?

Why did the names vanish? Are you going to claim that nonwhite crime killed all of them?

Sounds like it's more their fault for not having enough children.

So? Do you object to the phrase "65 million years ago, mammals replaced reptiles as the dominant land dwellers"? Or "when the last Lord Salisbury died in 1966, the line ended. A banking magnate soon replaced the Salisburys as tenants of Longleat Hall".

Do you argue that this wouldn't have been considered an entirely anodyne phrase right up until it started to be used describing a politically live issue?

I have made an observation. What is the point of debating the cause unless it is to equivocate between "it isn't happening" and "it's good that it is happening"?

My point is that it's impossible by definition to replace someone who's not gone. So "replacement" as in "the great replacement" obscures the actual causes of the original group's diminishment as rhetorically convenient.

More comments

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