site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   25886 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.

and that there may be others who are in some way deterred, even marginally, from future criminality

This is one of the parts where death penalty advocates really lose me. I've done my share of fantasising about the sort of actions you only admit to taking in Minecraft (TM), and I'm very sure that for each of them the certainty of a swift end by firing squad would be greatly encouraging compared to the reality of a lifetime in a US supermax prison. I might be somewhat persuadable by statistics showing that death penalty candidate criminals really prefer life imprisonment, if those exist, but in this particular case the perp was a jihadi! Throwing away their life is their whole schtick.

I can understand death penalty advocates feeling moral revulsion at criminals being kept alive and healthy on their dime, but hoping for increased deterrence to me really seems like an instance of "what feels good must be good" just-world fallacy.

I can understand death penalty advocates feeling moral revulsion at criminals being kept alive and healthy on their dime, but hoping for increased deterrence to me really seems like an instance of "what feels good must be good" just-world fallacy.

No, I’m operating on the belief that the failure of capital punishment to effectively deter crime in the 21st century is precisely because of the massive temporal gap between conviction and execution, and because of the absurd behind-closed-doors way in which it is carried out.

My preference is for executions that are carried out in a public place, and in a visually evocative manner. We could bring local inmates — especially juvenile detention inmates — and force them to watch. “That’s your homeboy, or a member of the gang you’ve been curious about joining, being strung up in front of you. If you don’t change your life really fast, that will be you soon.” I do believe that this could be a very effective deterrent, because it would stress the reliability of the punishment and underline its immediate relevance to onlookers.

I’m not worried about deterring jihadists. You’re correct that the kind of guy who would consider becoming a terrorist is not going to be fazed by watching one video of a fairly sterile and bloodless execution; the possibility of that outcome is already priced into his worldview. And if it remains the case that this sort of execution is only in the cards for the absolute worst-of-the-worst, once-in-a-generation criminals, then you’re right that it won’t have much of an effect on the average criminal. If, on the other hand, it’s made clear that this is the sort of thing that will happen to you, young man, then I think it’d be a different story.

Death penalty eligible criminals have the option to waive their final appeals and get it over with. Almost none of them take it.

I don’t think the death penalty is deterring, because it isn’t used often enough. But it’s sure not deterring in the other direction- the actual reality of execution is spending twenty years in a maximum security prison and then dying.

The death penalty is way more efficient (if done by a not incompetent government). To deter people, we could give them a "short" stay in prison first, but if people are comfortable committing a crime then dying, wouldn't they off themselves? Oh wait, I forgot most criminals are idiots...I still think execution would deter any who would be deterred.

Why do people use Canadian/Dutch/Swiss euthanasia services when they could just off themselves? Why is the right-wing set so offended by the existence of those if offing oneself is an equivalent option? Clearly precommitting to having someone else do it is psychologically a lot easier.

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