site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4d ago (text post)   17016 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Shane Gillis and the Limits of Credentialism
Comedy and the Limits of IQ Essentialism

Shane Gillis is being criticized for an SNL monologue joke about women wearing unseemly attire at the gym — this alone is totally uninteresting cw fodder — but the question of credentials got my attention. A number of the women offended at his joke have invoked their credentials to explain why Shane Gillis is obviously not a good comedian. A uniquely qualified student of comedy invokes her prestigious internship with a smirk to inform you that she knows about comedy. A graduate of comedy writing believes that her classes permit her to speak with haughty authority on comedy. A former working comic explains from a “craft perspective” why Shane Gillis’ joke didn’t work. Of course, none of these people have even vaguely approached the level of popularity of the critiqued comedian. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the foremost credentialed comedy expert in the world has made such a criticism: Harvard undergrad in writing, Princeton PhD in comedy studies, highly published in the highest-impact comedy studies journal. How seriously should we weigh the view of the credentialed against the comedian?

I am tempted to say that the credentialed should have zero weight added to their opinion due to their credentials alone. The only credential in comedy is whether you know how to make people laugh. It would be epistemically arrogant to think that “comedic authority” could ever be bestowed upon a person by way of credential when we barely know the origin and social purpose of comedy to begin with. I recently came across a cool study and overview of one set of theories on humor published last month (the intriguing bits in bold so you can skip through):

The Contents and Function of Humor Among Hunter-Gatherers

Adopting a view of humor as an evolved response to benign violations, I argue that four comic themes characterize most humor across cultures: pain and misfortune, sex and obscenity, the foreign, and the sacred. I propose that each of these themes are ultimately grounded in our evolved psychology as universal pressure points that humor can tap into. I review 745 descriptions of humor in the ethnographic record of the ten hunter-gatherer societies in the Probability Sample Files (PSF) within the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) World Cultures database, finding support for my account. I discuss the relevance of these findings for our understanding of the evolution and function of humor, arguing that humor evolved to signal and reinforce interpersonal trust and affiliation through reciprocal play with benign violations of socially charged norms and boundaries.

the benign violation theory stipulates that the violations required for humor must have a negative valence, hence mild physical mishaps like slipping on a banana peel are considered humorous while purely positive incongruities (e.g., strokes of luck like winning the lottery) are not. For something to be humorous, it must be incongruous not with our expectations of how things usually are but rather with our normative sense of how they “ought” to be. In other words, it must be appraised as wrong, bad, or threatening.

Secondly, the benign violation theory stipulates that for such violations to elicit humor as opposed to purely negative emotions, they must ultimately be appraised as benignly non-worrisome (i.e., normal, harmless, or okay). This explains why mild physical mishaps are funny while serious violations like being diagnosed with cancer are not. For something to be humorous according to the benign violation theory, two appraisals must then co-exist: a benign appraisal and a violation appraisal. By specifying that the violations required for humor must have a negative valence and including the condition of benignity, the benign violation theory builds on the incongruity theory to more accurately differentiate what is humorous from what is not

While humor is often posited as uniquely human, social play is an activity engaged in by most mammals, with an evolutionary antecedent of human laughter manifested in the laughlike panting that accompanies the “play face” of many other great apes (van Hooff, 1972; Gervais & Wilson, 2005; Winkler & Bryant, 2021). In play, animals typically benignly violate each other’s physical boundaries through play fighting, wrestling, chasing, and the like (Aldis, 1975). Play signals like the play face here ensure that violations are understood as benign, preventing misunderstandings from escalating the play fighting into actual violence (Pellis & Pellis, 1996).

testing function, allowing individuals to assess the quality of their social relationships (Winkler & Cartmill, 2026). By imposing a mild cost on a target in the form of a benign provocation while closely monitoring the target’s response, the teasing great ape can glean information about how much the target values the relationship. Reciprocal teasing banter in humans has been proposed to fulfill a similar, elaborated function: By benignly provoking each other without either party taking offense, the participants are in effect saying, “We are close enough that we can say anything about each other” (Terrion & Ashforth, 2002:72). Starting with small provocations and gradually ratcheting up the offensiveness of teases can thus be a way to build a bond of trust.

The fact that teasing, the variety of humor that is not unique to humans, is the most common subtheme among hunter-gatherers, accounting for a majority of humor descriptions, suggests that it may have been the original form of humor. It is also the variety of humor that most resembles the rough-and-tumble play from which humor likely evolved, with the physical violations of play giving way to the more abstract interpersonal violations of teasing. Just as teasing may serve a bond-testing function in other great apes (Winkler & Cartmill, 2026), reciprocal teasing in humans can take on a more elaborate, ritualized form of the same function, with two parties teasing each other as a mutually recognized signal of the strength of their relationship (Haugh & Bousfield, 2012). Not taking offence to a teasing provocation (i.e., appreciating it as benign) requires and thereby signals interpersonal trust.

Attempting humor by violating any norm ascribed social weight, not just interpersonal ones, requires and thereby signals trust that the recipient will interpret it as benign instead of malign. If the recipient responds by appraising it as benign and laughing, that signals reciprocal trust. For instance, Gusinde notes that Ona men, when by themselves away from women and children, engage in “coarse jokes and offensive remarks about women” that they never otherwise permit themselves (1931:1652). A bond is thereby forged through mutual complicity in transgression. Relatedly, Wiessner (2014) found that the vast majority of humor among Ju/‘Hoansi occurs at times of day when people are segregated by gender and age, allowing people to joke freely without overstepping the rules of respect organized along these lines.

Jokes reinforcing ingroup bonds at the expense of outgroups are not restricted to gender but also extend to foreigners, invoking the theme of the foreign. Such outgroups include other local bands or tribes with differing norms, such as the Blackfoot mocking the custom of eating dogs among the Cree (McClintock, 1968:238), or surrounding societies, such as the Mbuti mocking the rituals and institutions of their surrounding Bantu villagers (Turnbull, 1965a:294). Foreign ethnographers studying the surveyed societies commonly describe themselves becoming the butt of humor on account of their “naïvete and ineptitude” in native affairs (Dunning, 1959:ix) or their awkward grasp of the native language (Gusinde, 1931:104). The ethnographer may turn this to their advantage by playing along, becoming a participant in the humor rather than merely a subject of it, thereby engaging the natives in an unofficial reciprocal joking relationship (e.g., Cipriani, 1966:21).

humor may also be used to get away with deviating from otherwise reigning standards of behavior by couching one’s violations in humor. Most commonly, ethnographers describe humor being used as a non-comital way of violating social mores or interpersonal boundaries to indicate or fulfill sexual desire. The risk of rejection is minimized if an advance is coated in benign humorousness since it can always be brushed aside as just a joke, capitalizing on the affiliative signal of humor. Landes (1937), for instance, notes that Ojibwa men teasingly refer to their female joking relatives as “my debtor,” implying that they have sexual rights to them (p. 45). Among the Ona, “tender teasing” is similarly said to be the beginning of any love affair (Gusinde, 1931:445). Multiple observers report being bashfully taken aback when finding themselves on the receiving end of raunchy overtures from natives couched in humor, including Pryde (1972:89) among the Copper Inuit and Turnbull (1962) among the Mbuti. Turnbull, for instance, recounts how a woman marks her interest in him through a double entendre based on his nickname “the long one” (p. 141). (lol)

There are many branches of discourse to swing off from here. Did Shane’s norm violation go too far in the eyes of some women, thereby evoking their ire? Did some women misinterpret of Shane’s monologue, though filled with abundantly placating self-deprecation? Or perhaps it was clipped and they didn’t see the full monologue? Is there reduced social trust and affiliation between the genders? Has the dating crisis gotten so bad that a woman wearing lingerie underwear at the gym approaches the untouchably sacred? Was Shane’s humor better off in the company of only other dudes? Are women just not very funny (this is no laughing matter)?

There’s something else worth exploring here. If the above theories are true, then comedy seems tied to social intelligence, at least within the “competitive” comedy circuit. Humor is an accurate signal of a person’s ability to “socially read the room”, to know where others stand on trust / affiliation / values / sensitivities. This is interesting because comedic skill seems to be unattached to IQ. The most popular comedians are not at all the smartest, in fact many do poorly in school, like Gillis / Louis CK / Theo Von. There is no actual “Harvard undergrad in writing, Princeton PhD in comedy studies” comedian, and I don’t think this is from a lack of trying as it’s the perfect job for a trustfund kid and provides an extremely glamorous social life. I wonder if this is evidence for a social intelligence not adequately predicted by g factor?

And maybe one more thing worth considering. If comedy is the measure of affiliation and trust, then the oft-criticized KillTony (I mean criticized by left media) is actually a wonderful vehicle for national unity. Having men, women, foreigners etc all criticizing each other in offensive ways to laughter is the exact utility of humor you’d want if your interest was to increase affiliation and trust between citizens of different backgrounds.

This reminded me of something, and I realised that I once got a scolding here about how a joke that I told literally didn't qualify as a joke, per five criteria the commenter meticulously outlined in detail. Not just that my joke wasn't funny, or was offensive, or didn't make him laugh (which would be fine): that it literally didn't meet the prerequisite criteria to be considered a joke. So as not to embarrass him, I won't tag the user in question.

I'm also reminded of a commenter I saw on the /r/ireland subreddit who was complaining about other users criticising TV shows they didn't like, and saying their opinions didn't mean anything because they weren't qualified. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Are you seriously suggesting you need a BA in television studies before you're allowed to say "I didn't enjoy this show"?

That guy deserves some sort of Redditor Award.

At least one person thought he was doing a bit, performing an elaborate parody of a Reddit wokescold. But it seems he was quite serious.

Hilarious read.

This reminded me of something, and I realised that I once got a scolding here about how a joke that I told literally didn't qualify as a joke, per five criteria the commenter meticulously outlined in detail. Not just that my joke wasn't funny, or was offensive, or didn't make him laugh (which would be fine): that it literally didn't meet the prerequisite criteria to be considered a joke.

The mods just recently did that too. Boner jokes not allowed on the Fun thread because they're too serious, they don't qualify as fun, or a joke, so you have to keep in in the CW thread ... you can debate theology in the «small question» thread though.

Anyway, some jokes.

A man walks into a forum and asks for a small question. The forum responds, «does God exist, and if so does He love us, and if so, did He die on the cross, or did He speak to that Arab?»

Another man goes to the forum on joke night and asks for a joke. A user says, «What bulges when a 17 year old boy gets to dance with with a hot coed in gym class? His eyes, of course!», but the mods throw the user out the door and comedy night became tragedy night.

Bub.

This is getting obnoxious. And yes, this is a mod warning, even though you will add it to your ledger of "The mods are persecuting me because I'm just too clever and edgy for them."

There is a certain category of user who continually wants to push boundaries, talk about things in a smarmy, antagonistic way, bring up topics in an edgy, circumlocutory fashion with plausible deniability, and then screech like a chimp kicked in the balls (not sure if being kicked in the balls actually affects chimps the same way, but I like the image so I'm going with it) when called on it and told to give it a rest, or at least tone it down. And they proceed to bring it up over and over, "calling out" the mods (or a mod) in every thread where they can possibly wedge it in because maybe if they keep grinding their axe often enough, everyone will take their side and throw rotten fruit at the mods and tell us to let them post as they please or something?

You are here.

There is also a category of user who is too autistic to realize that talking about their weird gooner fetishes isn't funny or fun and doesn't understand why we'd say "Not here."

It is not because the mods are prudes, or humorless (well, I am, but not all the mods are), or trying to BAN MY VIEWS THE MODS CAN'T HANDLE.

It's because we want people to be reasonable and civilized and not shit up the place, particularly by trying to see exactly where the line is between "I can get away with this" and "Too much."

You are here.

Now, FWIW, I kind of disagree with@netstack's original formulation: I would not say categorically that all "sex and sexuality" topics are inherently CW. I can imagine sexuality-related content that would be funny and light-hearted enough to be Friday Fun Thread material. The problem is that what was posted in that thread was not. (And this is not an invitation to test what you can get away with.)

As myself, @netstack, and @naraburns have explained to you and others repeatedly, a lot of modding comes down to "I know it when I see it," along with community sentiment, when it comes to deciding what does and doesn't fly. This means that yes, it's subjective, sometimes what passes one mod will not pass another, and we are not going to give you a long TOS contract spelling out what you can and cannot get away with and then gnash our teeth and say "Curses, foiled by your brilliant legalism!" when you figure out a way to post something that we did not explicitly prohibit.

So no, "boner jokes" are not prohibited in the Friday Fun Thread, but it is context-dependent (a boner joke that winds up being CW-bait or "joking about boners with minors," for example, would definitely not be appropriate material).

I'm not going to ban you, even though you have multiple "Ban this guy next time" warnings, because banning people for complaining about the moderation is a bad look and people without familiarity with your oeuvre (and past history under other alts) might think we're just being sensitive to criticism. But I am telling you that open and reasonable discussions about moderation are 100% allowed, even if accompanied by harsh criticism. You can take it up with us in public or private when offered in good faith. We do our best to clarify our thinking and our moderation decisions, and if you really want to know if a given post will be okay or not, you can ask us. But every CW thread is not an opportunity for you to complain about that one time a mod did something you're still chafing about.

You can take it up with us in public or private when offered in good faith

This is good faith.

But every CW thread

It fit the occasion. I am not doing it in anywhere near every CW thread.

one time a mod did something you're still chafing about.

It was recent, basically the last mod decision that I remember. It's not like I necro'd it.

give you a long TOS contract spelling out what you can and cannot get away with and then gnash our teeth and say "Curses, foiled by your brilliant legalism!"

I have said in multiple places when arguing against rules lawyer people that the actual rules are what mods do and not what is written on the sidebar.

This is getting obnoxious. And yes, this is a mod warning, even though you will add it to your ledger of "The mods are persecuting me because I'm just too clever and edgy for them."

Honestly I was just trying to be funny. The mods said the bulge jokes can go into the CW thread because they're definitely not fully censored, so I saw an opportunity to make one.

I think you're putting words in the mods' mouths. From the linked comment, I can't see anything even resembling the sentiment "jokes about erections literally do not qualify as jokes".

He said

First: sex and sexuality topics are quintessential CW material and therefore banned from the Friday Fun Thread.

Therefore jokes about sex and sexuality are not fun, therefore not funny, therefore do not count as jokes.

If you want to shut down your reasoning faculties and be obnoxiously literal, 2 can play at that, @EverythingIsFine did not say your joke was not a joke. He said it was a joke lacking the qualities to be funny.

Scott Adam had a proposal I subscribe to that a joke needs to contain at least one but ideally two or more of the following [to be funny]: Unexpectedness, Exaggeration, Incongruity, Relatability, Absurdity, Reversal.

at least to me your joke doesn't contain any of these in any meaningful sense.

I think you're putting words in @EverythingIsFine 's mouth. From the linked comment, I can't see anything even resembling the sentiment «jokes about beauty sleep literally do not qualify as jokes.» He said you joke was not funny (a sentiment I endorse. What did it even mean?)

I really do not understand what I've done to earn this kind of hostility. Relax.

I was not being hostile, I was simply responding to gaslighting in a reasonable way. You are now poisoning the well with the loaded command of telling me to « relax ». Obviously, one can respond to logical fallacies in a very relaxed way, which is what I did.

Therefore jokes about sex and sexuality are not fun, therefore not funny, therefore do not count as jokes.

The quote above doesn't say sex jokes aren't funny. It says sex jokes are CW material and belong in the CW material thread, even if they're funny.

Suppose the mod thought they are funny. Then he would see they belong in the fun thread, which is where fun and funny things go.

It is not sufficient for a topic to be CW adjacent. We all know full well boners are not CW material because the CW thread has never had a boner thread. It has gender war threads. His joke was not even about CW sex material. Meanwhile, in the fun thread, a litany of posts about topics like Trump and Anthropic. Oh, that's not CW?

Quote from FFT OP:

This thread is not for anything Culture War related

Content that is both fun and CW is thus excluded.

If you don't think a particular post fits those declared standards, you should be reporting it.

If you don't think a particular post fits those declared standards, you should be reporting it.

That won't do anything. As Amadan just wrote, there is no sidebar, there is only precedence. The rules are what the mods do, not what is written.

More comments

We all know full well boners are not CW material because the CW thread has never had a boner thread.

It is really not difficult to find examples of top-level posts in the CW thread which mention erections:

None of these contain boner jokes, or are about boners. They are about other topics, often sexual, and make some kind of mention of erections or a synonym in the course of the exposition. That's completely different.

More comments

Well, what do you think "trust the experts" means?

Oh well it actually did mean vibes, papers and essays. What is the world coming to?

I know. It depresses me that the denizens of that sub were willing to take that principle to its logical conclusion, surrendering even subjective aesthetic judgements to the "experts".

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