site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   23186 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.

This is omitting a pretty important part about who the "rules" actually apply to

Even if the rules in practice were more like "protect the stability of the western block using all means necessary", Trump's actions still mark a drastic shift away from this. And considering how the west, America included, has flourished under the old order it seems strange to brake it up.

His supporters claim that they have moved to only protecting American interests, and that helping Europe has too long been a drain on the American economy. I think that throwing away alliances seem short sighted. Fighting China economically would surely be much easier if the US took coordinated action with the EU. But the more that the EU is pushed away, the harder such coordination becomes, as the EU has to look towards their own immediate interests.

Even if the rules in practice were more like "protect the stability of the western block using all means necessary",

A somewhat fair criticism of the "rules based international order" is that it was always kind of a real-countries-only club. Practically speaking, this meant democratic states and their key allies. The flip side of this is that most of the objectors were/are autocratic states complaining that they're denied the legitimacy accorded to democracies. They could have that status in an instant by reforming into actual democracies, but unsurprisingly their autocratic governments are not terribly interested in the proposition that only democracies (and their client states) get to have real sovereignty.

I think that throwing away alliances seem short sighted.

It is short-sighted, but one of the (many) flaws of Trumpist thought processes is that they are extremely concrete thinkers. They don't understand benefits that are not literal, material transfers. The US receives massive financial/material benefits from its international position, but that takes the form of things like access to cheap credit and deference to American preferences in allied policymaking, but these benefits are all too abstract for the populist mind. They're not tribute checks or retinues contributed to American military expeditions, so they might as well not exist. Instead, they live in a world where the US is being relentlessly exploited by its allies because it doesn't get everything it wants immediately for free.

They could have that status in an instant by reforming into actual democracies

Explain what actual democracy is. Please. Any case recently in the democracies where the vox populi was heard and not implemented in a way that perverted it. Especially in immigration. Brexit being one of the worst offenders.

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