site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23552 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.

Justice Department won’t enforce registration rules on silencers and certain guns after court ruling

The Trump administration announced the enforcement policy changes after a Texas judge in August ruled the permitting process was unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling was limited to the parties involved in that case, but the Justice Department said Friday it would no longer enforce the registration requirements more broadly.

Under the new guidance, ATF will no longer require registration unless the buyer lives in one of about 15 states that have state laws requiring that people go through the federal permitting process. The registration process will still apply for machine guns and what are considered “destructive devices” under federal law, the Justice Department said.

This is not a legislative change or even a change after a Supreme Court ruling, so the next administration could reverse it. With that said, the amount of erosion of the National Firearms Act in the last decade is beyond the wildest dreams of the most fervent pro-2nd amendment crowd from 20 years ago. There are states now banning AR15s or trying to ban handguns, but if a person doesn't live in one of those, they can buy a short-barreled rifle and suppressor with no background check or tax stamp.

I definitely think at the very least in 2 years when half of all new rifles are SBR, and gun stores are handing out $50 suppressors like candy, it may be hard to go back.

If we can get a real scotus ruling on "common use" then we may be only 50 million suppressors and sbrs away from winning them forever.

Now that is a gun-rights idea I hadn't thought of before: subsidize/promote silencers (or anything else) that are only legal in some jurisdictions, get the courts to recognize it as "common use", and enshrine it as s right for everyone forever.

Of course, that requires the courts to cooperate, which hasn't been a good option in the past.

Alito retires next term, with a Democratic Senate. Thomas won't live forever. The next President will likely be a Democrat. A leftist court won't pussyfoot around being anti-RKBA the way the current court pretends to be pro-RKBA, so it'll all be gone in one decision.

Well, all except the 50 million silencers.

Even if they are re-restricted, I don't think the government has the guts to pull off a mass confiscation. Is there precedent for that?

No, but "just [retroactively] ban ones that didn't go through the process" will generally work because gun owners and being autistically law-abiding have something to do with each other. (Permitting illegal stuff to be used on range properties tends to create liability for them.)

The new school of gun owners is a bit less, uh, 'cucked', but they aren't in political power yet.

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