site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12066 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.

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.

  • -10

The dictionary is a poor source here not because the word isn't correctly defined in the dictionary, but because quoting the dictionary is pulling a "ha ha, it's literally true, so I'm correct". The fact that the leaflets lie about their source literally fits the definition of black propaganda (since yes, it is fake), but it doesn't fit what people care about about black propaganda (which is that it substantially misrepresents the beliefs of the organization it claims to be from).

If people are angry about the term I used being incorrect, they can't then later admit the term I used is correct but it's not "the real issue". If it's not the real issue, then they should have given the correct one to begin with instead of falsely claiming that "black propaganda" requires misrepresentation!

They said

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).

This is patently untrue. Their complaint is false. I proved it false with like seven different sources. If they have other complaints that aren't wrong, they should have used those and not a false one.

I will not accept blatant goalpost shifting afterwards. State the real problem from the start or shut up.

If people are angry about the term I used being incorrect, they can't then later admit the term I used is correct but it's not "the real issue".

Pointing out a literal falsehood that is not relevant to the proposition that the argument is about is called a "nitpick". I care not a whit that someone was literally incorrect in such a context.

This is just another version of the "ha ha, it's literally correct" argument.

"it's correct" is the proper response to a false claim of "that's not correct". The truth is always the proper goal.

If they want to goalpost shift from that and give their "real objection" after, feel free but I don't take it as seriously.

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?

Are you claiming that the actual beliefs of real trans advocacy organizations are propaganda lies

I'm going to leave the exercise of looking up propaganda's definition to you this time, you might be surprised to learn it also doesn't require lies.

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