site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   20281 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.

To be clear, we only have a few journalists' word that the purported video exists and depicts what it claims to depict. I don't think the NYT would lie about this kind of thing, but it's hard to convey that sort of intuition. Why not release the footage? I can think of a few reasons:

  • Privacy: It feels insulting to be forced to release security footage of one's own home.

  • Security: It might not be a good idea to give the entire universe of wackos information about your home security system, especially if you are a controversial politician.

  • Game Theory: Being forced into releasing information to correct a baldfaced lie is in some sense giving in to threats, therefore incentivizing more baldfaced lies.

It's hard to know the correct course of action in these situations. Obama waited way too long to release his birth certificate, and we are still living with the consequences. Donald Trump first became a major figure in conservative politics because he was the only respectable person (at the time, Trump was considered respectable) willing to publically question where Obama was born.

Yeah unfortunately when dealing with lies, there is no simple easy answer. Sometimes debunking a rumor is what draws more eyes towards it to begin with.

There's a rumor going around that this was done to draw heat away from a Paxton scandal getting revealed soon after so perhaps the Talarico campaign felt putting more attention towards the debunk would be counterproductive.

It's bizarre he didn't just tweet out a picture of himself working on his laptop from bed covered in blankets with a "remember to get your flu shot" caption. Like, this is a solved problem.

If he really just had the flu he would have been posting daily vlog updates. There effeminately is a coverup going on, its just not the coverup the crazies first latched onto.

What a perfect typo.

An elite media team like Mamdani's would be able to find the exact photo composition and tone needed to pull that off. The more general rule is, "never let the public see your moments of weakness". A single bad photo would backfire.

Then you post a POV shot of a zoom meeting with your campaign staff with a box of tissues and a cup of tea on the table. Or a picture of your 104 degree temperature. Or a meme about how shitty having to work when you have the flu is. Literally anything is better than just disappearing for 12 days.

For someone who should be young, healthy, and robust, it should be even more important to demonstrate in some way how serious your illness is. Most of us would require a pretty substantial justification to miss 12 days of work in the middle of the busy season, especially when our jobs are on the line. It's possible that the worse he looks, the better. It would be evidence that this is serious and he isn't just being a little bitch who can't handle the pressure of a major campaign. Catching an unlucky strain of flu that takes you out of commission is nothing to be ashamed of. Taking the better part of two weeks off because of a minor illness or stress looks a lot more concerning.

The thing is, he didn't even need to go that far. A signed note from his PCP("James Talarico was in my office on this day") would have been enough, and providing a doctors note to an employer (AKA the People of Texas) for an extended absence is normal and could have been easily been played into a positive moment.

He didn't need to do anything. The only people who actually believe he was in a mental hospital are either incredibly stupid or so far up Trump's ass that they aren't voting for Talarico anyway, probably both.

Hi! I work in healthcare and I think that's the most likely explanation and I know a lot of "successful" moderates who feel that way also. Even got a hispanic hard left doctor to admit it.

I think you are ignoring the lower class Hispanic vote when you say this.

are either incredibly stupid or

Let me introduce you to the median voter

Strictly speaking, no one needs to do anything. But a candidate who doesn't bother to respond or explain at all why they disappeared for two weeks with zero planned events until election day should certainly expect a lot of speculation. That's "know you're cooked and giving up on the campaign" behavior. It reminds me of Kamala, and her internal polling that never showed her in the lead even once, no matter what the public polls said.

This is some real boomer advice. Not quite as bad as, "go to yoga class to meet girls," but it's up there. Doctor's notes are magical bureaucratic talismans, but politics is a street sport. People are too cynical for that nowadays.

There is also no reason to go into the doctor's office for the flu unless you need inpatient hospitalization. You get an over-the-counter flu test, make a telehealth appointment, and ask for Tamiflu. There's nothing else they can do for you unless you need oxygen.

This is some real boomer advice.

Who exactly do you think is voting in elections?

make a telehealth appointment, and ask for Tamiflu.

Do you know who you see in a telehealth appointment??? A doctor. Who can write you a doctor's note.

Maybe showing your sniffling face on a video chat and begging for tamiflu is a great way to prove you're not in an insane alsylum.

Doctor's notes are magical bureaucratic talismans,

Doctors notes are easy to get for nothingburgers if you just ask for one. If you're locked up in an insane asylum, I doubt many doctors will risk their license writing a letter without seeing the patient, saying that the patient has the flu. So I would take thr existence of one as strong evidence that the patient at least talked to the doctor.

Doctor's notes are magical bureaucratic talismans, but politics is a street sport. People are too cynical for that nowadays.

Compared to "A journalist said that these stillshots of surveillance footage of a backyard that they say match the satellite images of Talarico's backyard show a non-birthing person with brown hair acting like they don't have the flu so he definitely wasn't in Ohio"?

A doctor's note isn't proof-positive, but it's more normal than whatever the hell that is.

Actually yes, I consider the journalist reports of surveillance footage more credible. There is an entire cottage industry around bullshit doctor's notes.

Maybe for you, but for the average twitterati a doctor's note that you can look at from a doctor that verifyably exists is much more convincing than ncctv footage that you can't see, that even the jornalists claim only shows a man in talarico's garden.

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