site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23425 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.

They will never, ever get them back. They didn't get 18-inch barrel restrictions back when they fucked up and lost it. They didn't get braces or bump-stocks back when those leaked through. They haven't gotten FRTs back. They won't get SBRs or suppressors back either. If they are smart, they'll recognize the fait accompli and just let it go. If they're not smart, my guess is you see another round of Red State defiance the way you did with the border, and likely worse if they double-down.

President AOC (or Newsom)'s ATF will have fully automatic weapons, not to mention incendiary grenades. If they say "Mr. and Mrs. Gunowner, turn them all in" and then kill a few members, or an entire compound, of some unpopular group to punctuate their point, they'll get most of it back, and the rest will end up buried until they rust to uselessness.

Even Texas and Florida are not going to put their own police in the way of the ATF.

Texas did put police in the way of the open border and Biden just... let them.

I think the federal government does not want more Ruby Ridge and Waco style debacles. It's a PR disaster when they burn down the home of defiant people*. Some gun control advocates like to use feds death-squadding or bombing people who don't comply with gun laws as a trump card. Something about fighter jets being used to enforce compliance in a way an AR15 can't stop. They act like it is a mic drop debate ender to point out the feds have armored vehicles and fighter jets. But the fantasy of feds burning and bombing their political opponents is just not going to happen in the modern era. A century ago a little bit of that could happen but the feds are just softer now. Photos of federal agents standing over charred ruins mixed with dead children will prevent this†. Not that they have any moral issues with murdering their fellow Americans, but the terrible PR would harm their supporters in elections and they can't stand that.

*Branch Davidians actually burned down their own compound. But it looked like the feds did it and FBI agents perjured themselves denying that they used incendiary tear gas canisters.

† Like all those photos from Waco.

How’s Malinowski’s widow’s lawsuit going?

If.

Is there any precedent for SWAT raids on generally-law-abiding gun owners? If there isn't, what are the signs that the next administration will break new ground?

Ken Ballew would be 1971.

Also John Lawmaster 1991, on a tip that he had an illegally-converted machine gun. Fortunately Lawmaster wasn't home. ATF trashed the place, left the guns unsecured, and left a note "Nothing found- ATF". Probably the note is what gives the story staying power.

There's the 1994 Pennsylvania Lamplugh raid where ATF agents are alleged to have stomped a kitten to death.

Is there any precedent for SWAT raids on generally-law-abiding gun owners?

The Biden raids of "kitchen-table" gun dealers -- note that the Trump Administration is still defending his "engaged in the business rule".

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