site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19279 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 should point out that a challenge to mutual combat is in fact legal. They could have a boxing match or something. Of course nerds don't know that, but they could.

Boxing is undignified. Guns are the ultimate nerd equalizer. You want to remind the audience that we are in a civilized age where brute force avails not, as this draws them further into the realm of discourse. Imagine a company crafting two beautiful pistols just for the occasion. I’m not sure how you’d actually allocate points based on the shooting, though… maybe at the beginning, they both do a long distance target shoot to determine who speaks first, and maybe toward the end there is the duel where the most accurate shot gets ten extra minutes to finish their argument. Maybe the power of the wax revolver increases according to the points scored during the debate, to inflict more embarrassment upon your opponent, and you get to keep the beautiful armaments.

The problem with guns is that they are an equalizer that is simply too good. You might as well flip a coin to see who wins. Have them use whatever tools they want to hack each other and ruin each others' lives. Let's see how quickly Pinker turns to AI to win.

The problem with guns is that they are an equalizer that is simply too good. You might as well flip a coin to see who wins.

That's a feature, not a bug. The point of dueling is to demonstrate that you have the balls to risk your life to defend your honor, not to show that you are the better marksman.

"Too good" is a feature for guns and a bug for duels. Originally something like two thirds of duels ended when both participants missed. Flintlocks and smooth-bore barrels and spherical bullets kinda suck. But taking a 15% risk of dying is still more than enough to prove you've got balls and defend your honor. Some dueling codes mandated that the guns used actually not be too good in modern ways, because doubling or tripling the odds of death doesn't really buy you more honor, just more dead people.

Also antique dueling pistols look cooler, of course.

Duels of honour were not, in fact, a gentlemanly combat sport, although they often pretended to be. The point was to demonstrate the seriousness of whatever the duel was about, plus a certain level of physical courage, on both sides. This was ideally accomplished by imposing a low, but real, risk of death on both participants following which the seconds could send them home with honour satisfied. Hence pistol duels fought in morning fog using antique pistols, or epee duels fought to first blood.

A pistol duel should really be saved for the final round. We really lose something by not having people fight a repeated set of running duels over decades.

As a young officer in Napoleon's army, Dupont was ordered to deliver a disagreeable message to a fellow officer, Fournier, a rabid duellist. Fournier, taking out his subsequent rage on the messenger, challenged Dupont to a duel. This sparked a succession of encounters, waged with sword and duelling pistol, that spanned decades. The contest was eventually resolved when Dupont was able to overcome Fournier in a pistol duel, forcing him to promise never to bother him again.

The best Ridley Scott's movie is based on this story.

The last shot is potentially my favorite in all of cinema

/images/1791482894339717.webp

Yeah, I also think The Duel is a substantially more enjoyable read than Heart of Darkness. But that could just be the power of being forced to read something being capable of ruining anything talking.

This comparison seemed really random and confusing to me at first, since I thought you were referring to Anton Chekhov's novella "The Duel" that's about deconstructing the absurdities of dueling. But apparently there's also a Conrad novella "The Duel" that's about deconstructing the absurdities of dueling. Amusing.

And an early Steven Spielberg film!

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