site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   19934 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 12, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That makes sense.

But it feels like the Democrats missed an opportunity here.

I mean there are TONS of libtarded white guys would who love to be a Senator for Texas. We're talking boy band levels of female adulation here. How come they found this weird heretical, vegetarian, self-loathing, possibly gay guy?

Can't they just find a normal white dude who doesn't post shit about white people being a virus? It's not that hard.

Kinda of like how the Republicans are running Michelle Tafoya in Minnesota or Susan Collins in Maine. You find the best candidate you can for the race you have. There are lots of normal guys who would beat Paxton and would tow the party line once they are in office.

Talarico isn't being the Talafreako allegations. Only way he wins is a big blue wave.

Both parties keep doing this. Running bizarre looney candidates in critical races. There's hundreds of millions of Americans and these are the ones all political focus is put on for key elections?

So both parties have been facing an uprising by voters who distrust the establishment candidates.

A blue dog Democrat running in the senate primary would have been painted as racist for not stepping aside for Jasmine Crockett.

Talarico got the nomination because he's clearly progressive enough for the DSA to expect him to be loyal. Someone more centrist would not have. They wouldn't have been able to get the establishment support or the progressive vote.

Similarly Ken Paxton got the nomination because he's won statewide office before and establishment Rs absolutely hate him. His voters trust him not to prop up the power of the R senate leadership clique.

How come they found this weird heretical, vegetarian, self-loathing, possibly gay guy?

"Damn it, there are still holdouts among the voters who are Bible-bashing redneck churchgoers. How do we peel them away from the Republicans? We need a Christian of our own. Where the heck do we get one?" Enter Talarico. "Wow, he's a Presbyterian seminarian! That's, like, double or even triple Christian! Woo-hoo, we're saved! (though of course not in any sectarian denominational religious sense, that would involve the concept of sin and the only sins are racism, sexism, transphobia and climate denialism, all of which we are free from)".

I don't think he's gay, by comparison he makes Pete Buttigieg look like a Folsom Street float participant in that area. I think he's just plastic. And of course they needed someone who would be soundly on board with all the liberal agenda so they couldn't get a genuinely theologically conservative/orthodox Christian guy who might, you know, say that sin was real or even worse stuff. So Talarico it was, who was white cis het male enough to be acceptable, but not offensively so.

I don't think he's gay

Girllllllll...

Friend, brother, colleague, he's a Democratic party politician, he is legally required to have a favourite local and a favourite national drag queen. How else will he sing along with Blue's Clues?

He allegedly has a girlfriend, though if we want to put on the tinfoil hats, it could be an arranged relationship for PR purposes but I don't think that's likely, more likely is a minor scandaletto about "were they dating while he was in office and she was lobbying him?" which may be why we don't see much of her:

As of May 2026, Talarico has been in a four‑year relationship with Brianna Menard, who previously served as his chief of staff in his Texas House office; she left the position after they developed feelings for each other.

It could well be she who steered him towards vegetarianism and drag queens:

She has also publicly described herself as a vegan and has referenced spending time at Austin’s Cheer Up Charlies, an Austin venue known for hosting drag performances and catering to the city’s progressive activist scene.

A Talarico campaign spokesman told the NY Post that Talarico was not vegan, “much to his girlfriend’s chagrin.”

The problem is finding one of those people who a. wants to be a Democrat and b. can slide through the treacherous reefs of Identity Politics Primary Season.

Yeah, I’d expect especially the latter is a rough point. There’s a million Blue Dog Democrats in Texas, usually the reverse of the Thrown In the Pit on the right on something moderate-left on abortion or trans stuff… but there’s no way they’d make it through a primary without getting quisenarted.

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