site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   7815 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 19, 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.

An interesting "false flag" in the transgender culture war: a mystery group is impersonating a transgender group and sending texts and flyers to the wrong people:

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/texans-receive-texts-impersonating-transgender-advocacy-group/

This week, some Texans reported receiving texts about “gender-affirming care in Texas” and a “complete guide on bathrooms and beyond for trans kids at school.” Those messages included links to the website of the Transgender Education Network of Texas, or TENT.

Questions about gender-affirming care in Texas? Start here. You can get the care you need: https://transtexas.org/resources

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/trans-student-mailers-hit-texas-210015782.html

This week, some Texans reported receiving texts about “gender-affirming care in Texas” and a “complete guide on bathrooms and beyond for trans kids at school.” Those messages included links to the website of the Transgender Education Network of Texas, or TENT.

"This was sent to my home. Addressed to the 'students' of our family from the 'Texas Transgender Student Union.' It coaches minors on what to do if their parents are not supportive of their 'trans' identity and walks them through getting emancipated," Gonzales posted.

As far as I can tell, of course, the transgender groups in question have no disagreement with the contents in these messages, but they have been sent to the wrong people. They want this content to stay on the down low and for parents not to know about it. As on twitter poster put it "The trans people wouldn’t be stupid enough to send this out right before midterms unless they thought you were trans" (emphasis added). The pages on the websites that the pamphlets and texts linked to have been taken down, though archive links show they had content on them previously: https://web.archive.org/web/20261005063417/https://transtexas.org/trans-texas-takeover-tour/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260807023304/https://transtexas.org/resources/ which is a very interesting thing to do for a group that presumably wants people to attend their tour and have access to some resources.

This does reinforce the idea that the trans project is both unpopular and/or secretly transing kids without their parents knowing, as they reacting with horror that parents are being exposed to their message.

This hiding behavior is certainly not standard among all groups. Most groups would be thrilled to get free publicity pointed to their website, even if the messages are coming from an anonymous benefactor (assuming it doesn't get them on a spam shitlist or something). Nevertheless, it does seem like democrat ideology mandates that they support the maximalist trans movement, and their solution is to distance from it.

It's not a difficult mystery at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda

The Republican midterm strategy has been to repeatedly yell transgender and immigration over and over and over again at voters like the 9/11 family guy skit, hoping to get people to look past the financial disaster/corruption/etc.

We have motive. We have means. We have opportunity. They seem to be targeting right wing families in particular.

The thing that twinges my antennae a bit is that it was addressed to "Students of the XXX family," where XXX is the family that lived here about 10 years ago, for whom we still get mail from time to time, all sent from super right-wing organizations.

And we have evidence of it being a psyop already given the supposed group has no previous history and the only existing organization it has any attachment to has said it's an unauthorized usage of their name.

To be clear, your position here is "Republicans are truthfully spreading the things their opponents believe, and this is a bad thing"?

If so, I'm confused at why you're comparing it to "Black Propaganda", which is definitionally about untrue stuff (according to Wikipedia, which is only honest).

If your position is that Republicans are untruthfully spreading things their opponents don't actually support: which things? It might help your comment to be explicit.

The organization is not a serious activist group and does not seem to exist for any other purpose except as a psyop, how does that not inherently count as untrue?

The created story here "the trans are trying to reach your kids through the mail" is not real.

Are you pretending the content of their message is an untrue reflection of their opponents' beliefs? Because you keep avoiding addressing this.

I don't consider you a serious activist group; does that mean your comment is untrue?

The created story is 'the trans believe X,Y,Z thing that horrifies the normies', which is indeed real.

Could you try replying to the words in my comment?

Sure

To be clear, your position here is "Republicans are truthfully spreading the things their opponents believe, and this is a bad thing"?

Never said either A or B of this.

So back at your words, try replying to what is in my comment.

If so, I'm confused at why you're comparing it to "Black Propaganda", which is definitionally about untrue stuff (according to Wikipedia, which is only honest).

Is there a more proper term for pretending to be from an "enemy organization" in this way? From what I can tell black propaganda is the closest one.

I'm also not sure it is definitionally about untrue stuff only. "Black propaganda definition" on Google gets me "Black propaganda is a deceptive form of communication that hides its true origin and falsely attributes the message to an enemy, rival, or a fake authority to damage their reputation, undermine morale, or manipulate public opinion."

Nothing there requires the message to be misrepresenting.

And dictionary.com strictly says "propaganda that does not come from the source it claims to come from".

Again nothing there requires it to be misrepresented, merely that the source is a lie. Although I guess they actually made the organization as an LLC, so it's not strictly a lie to say it came from the "Texas transgender student union" as that does exist and was created a month ago for this purpose, it's just purposefully deceptive in the intention is to make people think this is some trans activists.

If your position is that Republicans are untruthfully spreading things their opponents don't actually support: which things? It might help your comment to be explicit.

It's a fake organization. Again not strictly fake, but the way people are meant to interpret it is obvious. And that intended interpretation is false.

Never said either A or B of this.

So back at your words, try replying to what is in my comment.

So, I ask you a clarifying question: "Are you saying X?" I also add: "If you're NOT saying X, then (...)"

And, in your world, asking the question means I'm not replying to your comment?

That's pretty disingenuous.

Is there a more proper term for pretending to be from an "enemy organization" in this way?

I mean, the OP used "false flag", which is the general term (including non-propaganda stuff, like the Nazi false-flag attacks on themselves used as a pretext for the invasion of Poland).

And dictionary.com strictly says "propaganda that does not come from the source it claims to come from".

This is on par with "I asked the AI and that's what it said".

I gave you two sources but sure let's check some more from my Google search of "black propaganda definition"

The next result is Collins dictionary which says https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/black-propaganda#google_vignette

propaganda that does not come from the source it claims to come from.

Next is Salisbury University https://libapps.salisbury.edu/nabb-online/exhibits/show/propaganda/what-is-propaganda-/the-colors-of-propaganda

Black Propaganda

One of the most deceptive forms of propaganda involves material created by one group but attributed to another. Black propaganda falsely claims a message or image was created by the opposition in order to discredit them.

Then is the Southern Methodist University https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Propaganda/black.html

Black propaganda is any kind of material that is not obviously propaganda and whose origin is completely concealed. The item is accepted for something other than what it really is.

And last here's the "media manipulation casebook" https://mediamanipulation.org/definitions/propaganda/

black referring to propaganda that disguises its origins, often portraying itself as the target it is trying to discredit.

Weird how none of these links mention falsehood or misrepresentation of material as a necessary detail. Why did they all coincidentally miss that memo? If you can not provide a valid explanation for why all of these preexisting sources all happen to make the same mistake, then kindly stop arguing this point.

Heck even if we want to go to "well that's not what Wikipedia says", actually it does too. For example we can see their short definition in this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Black_propaganda

Black propaganda is propaganda which purports to be from one side in a conflict but is actually produced by the opposing side

Or just by looking at the first paragraph of the main Wikipedia page!

Black propaganda is covert disinformation deliberately attributed to a false source—often the very group it aims to discredit—in order to undermine that group's credibility.[1][2] Black propaganda contrasts with gray propaganda, which does not identify its source, as well as white propaganda, which does not disguise its origins at all.

It's not about whether or not it misrepresented the source, it's about attribution to a false source. The disinformation is because it's literally not from the correct source, the sourcing is a lie.

Which is why the end of the paragraph is

It is typically used to vilify or embarrass the enemy through misrepresentation.

Typically is an odd word for something apparently necessary in the definition. Typically is a word used when there are exceptions!

Likewise it says later

Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions.

Weird if it was a necessary part they would use "sometimes" and not "all times" for spreading lies, tabrications, and deceptions.

I am right, it is not a necessary part of the definition.

propaganda

in order to discredit them.

Are you claiming that the actual beliefs of real trans advocacy organizations are propaganda lies meant to discredit them, comparable to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Do you really not get the distinction people are drawing here?

The organization is not a serious activist group and does not seem to exist for any other purpose except as a psyop, how does that not inherently count as untrue?

By the organization being real and serious, and the evidence for it being in the OP?

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