site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9d ago (text post)   25944 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.

Most bullies really don't think that far ahead, and the "lesser role" often turns out to limit the potential of the bullied significantly. So the victim loses out on quality of life while society at large lose out on that person's abilities. The only winners are the bullies who get to have fun and/or temporarily cement their social status.

As ArjinFerman points out, the bullies don't need to think about it; they're operating according to their nature. Society is hierarchical, and no one wants to be in the lower levels, but someone has to be for it to work. Bullying is one way human nature accomplishes that.

This is why authority is so upset when someone strikes back against bullies outside the rules of the playground; it is disruptive.

(The bullies are not the top either, but they're higher than their victims!)

Most bullies really don't think that far ahead, and the "lesser role" often turns out to limit the potential of the bullied significantly.

I'm not really for bullying, but to play devil's advocate, the former doesn't matter - how far ahead to beavers think when building a dam? - and the latter could very well be to the benefit of society - the kinds of people who came into positions of power after "anti-bullying" became a thing, did massive damage to society and our culture.

I do not see a lot of typical victims in power. In mainstream perhaps, there are more. Those who get in power are, as the other guy noted, still the bully type, even if not the locker-showing jock type.

If you're thinking of the modal trans activist moderator, he wouldn't be bullied into insignificance, he'd just adapt to grow up into a duckspeak comissar of some other ideology.

the kinds of people who came into positions of power after "anti-bullying" became a thing, did massive damage to society and our culture

These people are the bullies though. They simply found a way to weaponize the rules against people who they dislike. Physical violence is banned but social violence is not, so there is no way to defend yourself against social ostracism, rumors, or even violence from people who are overlooked by enforcement or simply don't care about consequences. The reason why SJW's ring alarm bells in the minds of past bullying victims is that their tactics give Vietnam flashbacks to their experiences in highschool.

Consider how much more resilient to criticism Scott Alexander might have been had he not been bullied. He might have never banned the culture war thread from his forum, as he would have been able to dismiss the outrage. He would probably write even better articles if he was not terrified of backlash.

And Scott is doing fairly well. Many who struggled with bullying are unable to work well alongside others or attain stable relationships. Hurting themselves and people who they could have gotten along with and helped in a different life.

Again, obviously not everyone reacts to bullying like this. The effect it has seems to depend less on the actions of the bullies and more on the conclusions that the victim forms about the world. Some don't develop counterproductive coping mechanisms at all, and simply end up learning how to deal with adversity instead. But as far as I can tell, the people who take away positive lessons are much rarer than the people who do not.

So bullies have limited control over exactly how their victims will react (Violence? Avoidance? Come out stronger?), and have no real way of discerning whether the person deserves the treatment or if society is better off with them being punished. Ultimately, the only people who benefit are the bullies themselves. Any downstream effects are unpredictable, but mostly negative for society at large.

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